Reading Just Before Reviewing

... the panel of reviewers is assembled, and their work is set before them. The goal of the WritersWorkshop is to improve the work while validating the author. But reviewer input should be validated, too. Reviewers come in good standing because the WorkshopComprisesAuthors, but reviewers should become familiar with the work so their specific feedback is credible.

* * *

Everyone who critiques a pattern should have read it. It's possible to critique a pattern from expert knowledge of the subject matter, but here, we presume that AuthorsAreExperts and that the presentation, the "experience" of the pattern, is the focus of the review.

A reviewer can spend many hours thoroughly reading a pattern and studying for its review.

A reviewer may research references and track down every possible lead. But most of the leads will be dead ends, and most relate to technical details beyond the technical scope of the review.

On the other hand, many reviewers tend to give a paper only superficial review, or may pore over the work in real time.

These reviewers are not only a distraction to the review process, but they do the author a disservice.

If some reviewers prepare thoroughly, their detailed reviews are likely to swamp the input of other reviewers. The volume of well-considered input may easily mask the sublime insight produced by a spontaneous review.

Therefore:

Reviewers should read the pattern just before reviewing it. The pattern will be fresh in their minds; the pattern's emotional impact remains with the reader. This is sufficient to assess the literary and aesthetic qualities of a work.

* * *

Some reviewers may read and annotate other author's works far in advance. If the author permits, such reviewers may provide written comments to the author, but only after the workshop is done.

NEXT: AuthorReadsTheWork

-- JimCoplien 1996/08/26

[ WritersWorkshopPatterns ]