How can you effectively critique a story that has potential but needs revisions?

I would say you should offer suggestions for how to improve the story, rather than simply saying, "it needs work." One specific suggestion you could offer is to suggest ways to improve the story's structure. For example, you could suggest rearranging the plot events to create more suspense, or adding a subplot to add more depth to the story. You could also suggest cutting unnecessary scenes or adding more description to certain scenes.

Being specific and balanced in your critique of a story that has potential but needs revision is crucial for providing valuable feedback that can effectively guide the author in improving their work. By offering specific feedback, you can pinpoint the areas that require attention and provide clear direction for revision. This specificity helps the author understand the specific aspects that need improvement, enabling them to focus their efforts effectively.

Start with positive feedback, highlighting the story's strengths and potential. Clearly articulate specific aspects that you find promising. Then, offer constructive criticism by focusing on areas that need improvement, providing specific examples and suggestions for revisions. Use a supportive and encouraging tone, emphasizing that your aim is to help enhance the story rather than criticize. Finally, encourage open communication and collaboration, fostering a positive environment for the writer to consider and implement changes.

One of the first rules of writing to remember is that no piece of writing is ever done. It only meets a deadline. So, when critiquing a story that has potential but requires revisions, it is important to bear this in mind by using a critically constructive approach. Focus with the positives - what are the story's strong points and elements that work for the narrative as it stands. Then, be specific in the feedback that you provide, by using examples to offer your suggestions. As writers, we can sometimes fall into the habit of revising a narrative to reflect our own perspective. It is important to separate yourself from this process to the point where you are still retaining the original voice and tone of the narrative.

It good for to be specific and balance story writing, otherwise; you will be adding fluffy characters or elongate sentences structure where it is not necessary, plus the storyline might deviate from the main point and leads to imbalance story. Also, audience can easily loose interest in such story because of unnecessary repetitions. However, it would be advisable for every story writer's to be specific and balance the storyline throughout their story writing. ???

An artist's ego is a delicate thing - and writers are artists. Critique is necessary to make any piece better, but remember that this came from the writer's brain and was created by their hands. Of course they're emotionally attached to it! Being specific will help you identify areas for improvement, but sweeping generalizations about the piece can cause a writer to stop listening productively. Be kind but clear.

By approaching the critique with respect, you create a safe and supportive environment that encourages open dialogue and trust. Acknowledging the author's efforts and recognizing the potential in their story helps maintain their confidence and motivation to make necessary revisions.

I Have stopped talking to someone because of the way he critiques one of my copy. It made me feel bad with his remark and hurt my ego. It took me some time to get over it. Critique with respect: "Wow, the story was great and how about checking the grammatical error in the third paragraph or re-writing it and changed the intonation to something like this...." See this? You already critique the story strategically and specifically letting them know the part to work on... Not you saying something bad like: "Who wrote this story for you? It was bad, the intonation isn't right and the story plot was poor. I can do something better for you." Can you see the difference between the two? Who will you work with amongst them?

No one likes hearing things that they don't want to hear. Even if they asked you what can I do better? Most of the time is to make you reaffirm that their story is good. To make the critique, make sure to stroke their ego first and then tell them.

Being courteous while criticizing anything is not easy... Your moral values are tested on the standards of your remarks. It is not very important what you say, But how do you say? That matters more.

1. Empathize with the Writer: Acknowledge the effort and creativity that went into the story, setting a positive tone for the feedback. 2. Focus on Objectives: Align your feedback with the story's goals and the writer's intentions, ensuring your critique serves their vision. 3. Suggest Examples: Provide examples of how similar issues have been resolved in other works, offering a practical roadmap for improvement. 4. Encourage Experimentation: Motivate the writer to try different approaches to solve issues, emphasizing the value of experimentation in the creative process.

Encourage and highlight the potential and then drive home the point about the flaws. Harsh criticism might kill the enthusiasm and that potential in the idea might get buried under doubt.

Honestly point out the flaws. Provide constructive feedback. Identify areas of improvement. Measure improvement levels. Publish refind versions to seek action.

Being honest and constructive in your critique of a story that has potential but needs revision is crucial for providing valuable feedback that effectively guides the author's improvement process. By offering honest insights, you help the author understand the areas that require attention and encourage them to address those aspects. This honesty promotes self-reflection and growth, allowing the author to develop their storytelling skills.

I am taking my own LinkedIn post - 'The Parable of Mexican Fisherman' as an example. It talks about how you already have everything and to be grateful. The whole post could have been in a story form filled with paragraphs. So let's consider that someone does exactly this! My suggestion - + A reader scans. --> So create the copy in a formatting that is appealing to the eyes. + Keep it Concise --> Follow the principle 'Less is more'. By inculcating these changes, his post would get more readability. This is an example of how I would provide feedback.

Don't just critique without a proper back up claim... Why did you said I should do it like this? Why should I make this change? Prepare to answer these types of questions with proofs... Don't contradict yourself, think it through before starting.

Don't let your idea of what a piece should be take over the vision of the person you hired to execute. Writing is creative and subjective - don't hire a writer and then critique away their voice. If you have multiple people giving edits, consolidate them to ensure the direction is clear and no one is contradicting anyone else. There should be one person delivering critiques - not an entire team.

Being objective and consistent when critiquing a story that has potential but needs revisions is crucial for providing effective feedback, as it allows for an unbiased evaluation, constructive suggestions, reliable evaluation standards, encouragement of growth, establishment of trust, and empowerment of the writer to make informed decisions about their work.

"Very interesting story. I would also love to learn about the following:" Then I would list some of the questions I am curious to learn answers about and mention several perspectives it may be possible to also view it through in the future; remembering that we were all at some point in need f help improving our skills or expertise. The criticism and feedback are very different from each other : one focuses on lack the other on improvement and growth. If you have made an effort to graciously convey the latter and it's somehow perceived as negative , - there it stops being your problem, in my opinion:)

Making notes on a document can be a helpful way for an editor to organize their critiques. Read a piece through multiple times before sending over your edits. It can be helpful for clarity to get on a call to discuss, but it's helpful to the writer to have specific edits and changes written down to reference.

Being concise and organized when critiquing a story that has potential but needs revisions is essential for providing effective feedback, as it allows for clear and focused evaluation, systematic identification of key areas, impactful communication, efficient use of time, clarity in conveying suggestions, and respectful consideration of the writer's work.

One thing that often gets overlooked is self-awareness. Knowing the difference between content that can be written better, and content that can be written more like how you would have written it yourself, is very important in delivering a fair critique. If it is the latter, then the critique is a matter of subjective preference of style, and your critique should reflect accordingly.

Just 2 simple steps. 1. Give credit where due and highlight the strengths, pros and high moments of the story that certainly make it good. 2. Tell them, that to make a good story great, you need to tweak things a little and then see the magic unfold. Positive emotion trumps negative emotion every time, so if you genuinely give feedback for the good parts, the person will be more receptive towards the feedback for the not-so-good parts.