When providing feedback on written text, it is often convenient to use a checklist or a set of guidelines. The following guidelines derive from the Guide till textkommentering of the DiaNa project. The guidelines cover three areas: A) overall impression, context and content; B) structure and diposition ; C) language and formatting. Make sure to read the guidelines before you start commenting on the text. Also keep the general feedback advice ( hur man ger bra feedback, Swedish only for now) in mind.

A) Overall impression, context and content

Describe your overall impression of the text. Every text is written in a context: it has a purpose and an intended group of readers (or several). A text written for high scool students, for instance, needs to be written in a simpler and more accessible fashion than a text written for experts within the area. Comment on how clear the overall message of the text is, and whether it is at a suitable level of abstraction and detail. Consider the target audience (usually students in the same area or attending the same course). Also discuss the content of the text: Are claimed facts really true? Is the level of detail in the text too large or to small? Do conclusions that are drawn actually follow from the proceeding text?

A selection of more specific questions:

1. Has the author made a good selection of relevant facts/information to present?
2. Are terms of art are described at an level appropriate for the target audience?
3. Do you think that readers (from the intended target audience) can fully understand the majority of the text?
4. Provide positive feedback for parts that are clear and easy to understand from a technical perspective, and suggest improvements for unclear, incomplete or overly dense parts of the text.
5. Do the illustrations/graphs/figures contain relevant information at an appropriate level of detail? Can they be understood without reading the main text?
6. What is the focus of the text?
   1. What is your impression, as a reader, of the main focus of the text?
   2. What do you think that the author wants to convey with their text? What does he or she want the reader to remember after having read the text?
   3. Is 6.1 above equal to 6.2? If not, what could be improved to put the perceived focus of the text more in line with the goals of the author?

B) Structure and disposition

Comment on the structure of the text, its title, introduction, main text, line of argument and conclusion. Comment on the disposition of the text, i.e., its headings and subheadings, division into paragraphs and layout. Is the choice of presenting data in the form of tables, figures and graphs appropriate and well executed?

A well-structured text is easy to read, has a logical line of argument, and has different parts that are connected in a natural way. Dividing each part into paragraphs makes it easier for the reader to digest the content. Headings and subheadings can be used to give an overview of the content of each part.

A selection of more specific questions:

1. Is the title informative and attractive?
2. Is there a clear introduction, that invites to further reading?
3. Is there a clear line of argument in the text, where each part has a natural connection to the surrounding parts?
4. Is there a clear conclusion, or does the text simply end in the middle? Does the conclusion reconnect to the introduction? Is there some "catchy" concluding remark that captures the core of the text?
5. Do paragraph breaks divide naturally connected parts of the running text? Would more (or fewer) improve readability?
6. Would another layout improve readability?
7. Is the structure of the text appropriate for the task, or does it need improvement?

C) Language and formatting

Discuss if the language used is at an appropriate level, nuanced and varied, the construction of sentences, spelling errors et c. Comment on the choice and
format used for references.

A selection of more specific questions:

1. Is the text at a level suitable for its audience, or is the language too stiff and formal, or too close to the spoken language? Can the text be read in a smooth and "fluid" manner, without getting stuck on unexpected or hard to understand content or language?
2. Does the author use terms of art in the appropriate way, or are there signs of misunderstanding their meaning?
3. Are the sentences of an appropriate length? Are punctuation marks used appropriately? Are there sentences that are so complex (or sparse) that it is hard to be certain what the author intends to say?
4. Does the text contain words that recur more often than needed? Do many sentences start with the same word?
5. Are tables and figures presented in a way that is suitable for their content and the audience?
6. Are there recurring spelling or grammatical errors?

Source: Guide till textkommentering

[Back to CS-WEd starting page]