Richard Straub makes much more sense than the other authors we have read about. He is clear about his purpose, he makes it so the reader fully (or mostly) understands each key point, and makes the reading easy to read and understand by the headings. Each heading clearly describes the purpose of that section. Another aspect that I enjoy about his writing is that he is straight to the point. In other words, there is very little fluff.
The first point that Straub introduces is the fact that you’re not an editor, so don’t try to be like one. Don’t fix every grammar, spelling, or punctuation error in the paper. You should look at yourself as a responder; one who makes suggestions and offers new topics or ideas. It does not include telling them what to redo or write. This is their paper; not yours.
As writers, we have all suffered writing reviews from our peers. Most of the time, these reviews come back to us with incomplete sentences. When “unclear” is written next to a long paragraph, how are we supposed to know which part of the paragraph is unclear? Straub instructs to “write most of your comments out in full statements” (19). Full sentences help the writer understand the suggestions that the responder offers.
The last part that Straub mentioned in his piece that I strongly agree with is the fact that you should challenge yourself to write as many praise comments as criticisms. Some people are very sensitive when dealing with criticism. Praising their writing can reverse this effect and create a balance. Furthermore, when you praise, praise well. That being said, be specific and let them know the exact part that was well-written.
My Blog 