I've been reading the comments students have made so far, and in general checking to make sure the drafts are being put out and commented on. To help you get a handle on what I'm looking for in comments, I wanted to share a short critique of a student's comments:
I'm impressed with the quality and value of your comments. You tell X what she is doing well. You catch a couple of places where surface level issues could be clearer, like citation. Now, do you agree or disagree with her arguments. What would you do in the next revision or two to improve the paper. This last question is key, because it's the one you *have* to learn to answer on your own, that is, if you want to become your own best critic. Overall, great job; but, pay more attention to content and meaning than you give to surface level fixes. You want your author to know how to improve her argument, so you have to tell her if you buy it or not and where it is weak and strong. You identify strengths, now help her by identifying weaknesses.
Overall, this student's comments were superb, but he falls into two traps beginning editors often fall into: 1) he gives more attention to surface issues rather than talking about the content; and, 2) he's too nice. You want to be CRITICAL of your author as well as supportive. Both styles of commenting help your author, and your goal is to help the author as much as possible.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment