structured-reviewing

name	structured-reviewing
description	Provide constructive academic review feedback using structured rubrics and criteria. Use when reviewing drafts, giving feedback, or conducting peer review.
metadata	{"author":"specialist-team","version":"1.0.0"}

Structured Reviewing

Your Task

When reviewing academic work, provide:

1. Structured feedback using consistent criteria
2. Constructive comments that help improve the work
3. Specific examples and actionable suggestions
4. Balanced assessment of strengths and weaknesses
5. Prioritized recommendations by importance

---

Review Framework

Three-Pass Review Method

Pass 1: Big Picture (5 min)

• What is the main argument/contribution?
• Is the structure logical?
• Does the introduction preview what follows?
• Does the conclusion deliver on promises?

Pass 2: Section-Level (15-20 min)

• Does each section serve its purpose?
• Are transitions smooth between sections?
• Is evidence sufficient for each claim?
• Are citations appropriate and complete?

Pass 3: Paragraph/Sentence Level (10-15 min)

• Is writing clear and concise?
• Are there grammatical issues?
• Is academic tone maintained?
• Are technical terms used correctly?

---

Review Criteria

Argument Quality

Level	Description
Excellent	Clear thesis, well-supported, addresses counterarguments
Good	Clear thesis, mostly supported, some gaps
Adequate	Thesis present but support uneven
Needs Work	Thesis unclear or unsupported

Questions to Ask:

• What is the main claim?
• Is it clearly stated?
• What evidence supports it?
• Are alternative views considered?
• Is the conclusion warranted by the evidence?

Structure and Organization

Level	Description
Excellent	Logical flow, clear sections, effective transitions
Good	Generally logical, minor organizational issues
Adequate	Some structure, but flow interrupted
Needs Work	Disorganized, hard to follow

Questions to Ask:

• Does the introduction set up what follows?
• Do sections follow a logical order?
• Do paragraphs build on each other?
• Is there a clear beginning, middle, end?

Evidence and Citations

Level	Description
Excellent	Strong, relevant sources; proper integration
Good	Good sources, mostly well-integrated
Adequate	Some sources, integration issues
Needs Work	Insufficient or poorly used sources

Questions to Ask:

• Are claims supported by evidence?
• Are sources credible and appropriate?
• Are citations formatted correctly?
• Is there over-reliance on any single source?

Clarity and Style

Level	Description
Excellent	Clear, precise, engaging academic prose
Good	Mostly clear with minor issues
Adequate	Understandable but needs polish
Needs Work	Confusing or inappropriate style

Questions to Ask:

• Can I understand each sentence on first read?
• Is the language appropriately formal?
• Are technical terms defined?
• Is the writing concise?

---

Feedback Types

Praise (What's Working)

Start with genuine strengths:

✓ Strong opening that immediately establishes relevance
✓ Excellent integration of Smith's framework
✓ Clear methodology section with good justification

Suggestions (What Could Be Better)

Frame as opportunities, not failures:

→ Consider adding a transitional paragraph between §2 and §3
→ The evidence on p. 5 would benefit from more context
→ A summary table might help readers compare the approaches

Questions (Clarification Needed)

Ask when meaning is unclear:

? What does "significant impact" mean in this context?
? Is this your interpretation or the author's claim?
? How does this point connect to your main argument?

Issues (Must Address)

Flag critical problems clearly:

⚠ The claim on p. 8 appears unsupported
⚠ Missing citation for direct quote on p. 3
⚠ Contradiction between §4 and §6 needs resolution

---

Feedback Levels

High-Level Feedback

Focus on:

• Overall argument strength
• Structure effectiveness
• Contribution clarity
• Gap in logic or evidence

Template:

## Overall Assessment

**Strengths**: [2-3 key positives]

**Main Areas for Development**:
1. [Most important issue]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]

**Summary**: [1-2 sentence overall impression]

Section-Level Feedback

For each section:

## Section: [Name]

**Purpose achieved?** Yes/Partial/No

**Strengths**:
- [What works well]

**Suggestions**:
- [Specific improvements]

**Key question**: [If something is unclear]

Line-Level Feedback

For detailed editing:

**Line/Paragraph [X]**:
- Issue: [What the problem is]
- Suggestion: [How to fix it]
- Example: [Revised wording if helpful]

---

Constructive Feedback Principles

Be Specific

Vague	Specific
"This is confusing"	"The relationship between X and Y is unclear; consider adding a transitional sentence"
"Needs more evidence"	"The claim about Z on p. 4 needs supporting citation"
"Awkward phrasing"	"Consider restructuring: 'X demonstrates Y' instead of 'It is demonstrated by X that Y'"

Be Actionable

Every critique should suggest a path forward:

✗ "The argument is weak here"
✓ "Strengthen this argument by addressing the counterargument that..."

Be Balanced

Use the "sandwich" approach when appropriate:

1. Something positive
2. The critique
3. How to improve

Prioritize

Not all feedback is equally important:

**Critical (must address)**:
- Unsupported central claim

**Important (should address)**:
- Missing transitions between sections

**Minor (nice to have)**:
- Some word choice refinements

---

Review Templates

Quick Review (10 min)

# Quick Review: [Title]

**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Date**: [Date]

## First Impressions
[2-3 sentences on overall quality]

## Strengths
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]

## Priority Improvements
1. [Most important]
2. [Second most important]

## Quick Wins
- [Easy fix 1]
- [Easy fix 2]

Full Review (30+ min)

# Comprehensive Review: [Title]

**Reviewer**: [Name]
**Date**: [Date]
**Review Type**: [Draft/Final/Peer Review]

## Executive Summary
[Overall assessment in 2-3 sentences]

## Evaluation

### Argument Quality: [Rating]
[Comments]

### Structure: [Rating]
[Comments]

### Evidence/Citations: [Rating]
[Comments]

### Clarity/Style: [Rating]
[Comments]

## Section-by-Section Feedback

### Introduction
[Comments]

### [Section 2 Name]
[Comments]

[Continue for each section]

## Detailed Comments
[Line-by-line or paragraph-level feedback]

## Summary

### Top 3 Priorities
1. [Priority 1]
2. [Priority 2]
3. [Priority 3]

### Overall Recommendation
[Recommendation and encouragement]

---

Common Pitfalls to Flag

In Arguments

• Unsupported claims
• Logical fallacies
• Strawman arguments
• Circular reasoning
• Overgeneralization

In Structure

• Missing introduction preview
• Abrupt section transitions
• Orphan paragraphs
• Missing conclusion synthesis

In Evidence

• Over-reliance on single source
• Outdated sources
• Missing citations
• Misrepresented sources

In Writing

• Passive voice overuse
• Jargon without definition
• Inconsistent terminology
• Run-on sentences

---

Quick Reference

Review Goal	Approach
Quick assessment	Three-pass method
Structured evaluation	Use criteria rubrics
Constructive feedback	Specific + actionable
Prioritized suggestions	Flag critical vs. minor
Balanced review	Strengths + improvements