Effective technical writing feedback points out issues without rewriting entire document. Comments should guide writers to improvements while preserving their voice. According to Google's Technical Writing course, targeted feedback helps writers learn and improve rather than creating dependency on editors. Learning to give specific, actionable comments makes you better reviewer and helps writers grow.
Why Comment Instead of Rewrite?
Rewriting teaches nothing. Writer sees different version but does not understand why changes improve content. Comments explain reasoning: "This sentence uses passive voice. Try: 'The API returns error codes'" teaches principle writer can apply elsewhere. Education through comments scales. Writers improve independently after learning patterns.
Writers own their content. Heavy rewriting removes writer's voice replacing with editor voice. Collaborative editing preserves author voice while improving clarity. Comments suggest improvements without overriding authorship. Respectful review builds better working relationships than takeover rewrites.
Comments faster than rewriting. Pointing out 50 issues takes less time than rewriting entire document fixing them. Writers make changes faster understanding their own content. Review bottleneck reduces when reviewers comment instead of rewrite. Efficiency matters for teams producing high volumes of documentation.
What Types of Comments Are Most Useful?
Clarity comments identify confusing passages. "This sentence is unclear. Break into two sentences?" or "What does 'it' refer to here?" Writers often cannot see their own lack of clarity. Reviewer confused means readers will be confused. Point out comprehension gaps without dictating exact fixes. Writer knows content well enough to clarify effectively.
Accuracy comments catch technical errors. "Verify this endpoint returns 200 not 201" or "This example will not compile - missing semicolon." Technical reviewers should flag correctness issues. Inaccurate documentation worse than no documentation. Comments should question anything seeming wrong. False positives acceptable. Missed errors are not.
Consistency comments point out style variations. "Earlier used 'email' but here using 'e-mail'" or "Screenshot shows dark mode but text describes light mode." Consistency matters for professional appearance. Readers notice inconsistency consciously or subconsciously. Point out variations letting writer decide canonical form.
Structure comments suggest organization improvements. "Consider moving this section before the prerequisites" or "These three paragraphs seem to cover same point - can they merge?" High-level structure issues affect document usability more than sentence-level wording. Comments on information architecture guide major improvements.
How Should You Write Effective Comments?
Be specific pointing to exact issue. "This is confusing" helps less than "The pronoun 'it' could refer to either the function or the parameter - clarify which." Specific comments enable targeted fixes. Vague comments force writers to guess what bothered reviewer. Precision helps. Reference specific words, sentences, or paragraphs.
Suggest direction without mandating solution. "This list might read better with parallel structure" beats "Change list to: item, item, item." Suggestions respect writer expertise while guiding improvement. Mandates remove writer agency. Unless error is objectively wrong, suggest rather than demand changes.
Explain reasoning when not obvious. "Passive voice here obscures who performs action - consider active voice so readers know what component does this." Explanation teaches principle. Writer learns why change improves content. Future writing improves without reviewer involvement. Education compounds through repeated reviews.
Prioritize comments by importance. Flag critical errors clearly. Mark nice-to-have improvements differently. Writers should know what must change versus what could change. Mixing priorities wastes time debating optional changes while critical issues remain. Use severity markers: blocker, important, optional. Clear priorities guide efficient revision.
What Areas Need Focused Attention?
Check examples carefully. Broken code examples destroy documentation value. Comment: "Test this example - seems to be missing required parameters." Examples represent major reader pain point when broken. Careful example review prevents user frustration. Request writer test every code block before publication.
Verify links function correctly. Comment: "This link returns 404 - update or remove?" Broken links look unprofessional and frustrate users. Link checking catches outdated references. Internal links especially need verification as sites reorganize. Every link should work. Dead links suggest abandoned documentation.
Review headings for scannability. Comment: "Consider making headings questions users might ask." Readers scan headings before reading body text. Effective headings enable finding information quickly. Generic headings force reading everything. Question-format headings match search behavior. Heading review dramatically improves document usability.
Check definitions for technical terms. Comment: "Define API on first use for readers unfamiliar with term." Undefined jargon alienates newcomers. Every technical term needs definition or link to glossary. Reviewers with different expertise level than writer catch missing definitions. Fresh perspective reveals assumed knowledge.
How Many Comments Is Too Many?
Fifty comments on ten-page document is reasonable. Five comments per page catches important issues without overwhelming. More comments suggest major problems requiring substantive rewrite rather than revision. Fewer comments might miss opportunities for improvement. Balance thoroughness with practicality. Very draft documents need rough feedback before detailed review.
Focus comments on high-impact issues. Grammar fixes matter less than structural problems or factual errors. Prioritize comments that significantly improve user experience. Skip minor style preferences unless team has established style guide requiring them. Effective review identifies issues most affecting documentation quality.
Batch similar comments. "Passive voice throughout - review and convert to active where possible" beats fifty individual passive voice comments. Batching teaches pattern while reducing comment overhead. Writers fix entire class of issues rather than individual instances. Pattern recognition teaches more than exhaustive enumeration.
How Should Different Review Types Work?
Technical accuracy review focuses on correctness. Subject matter experts check facts, code examples, and technical explanations. Comments flag anything inaccurate or outdated. Technical review less concerned with style than correctness. "Verify this still works with latest API version" or "This description does not match current behavior."
Editorial review addresses clarity and style. Technical writers or editors check readability, grammar, consistency, and structure. Comments improve communication without requiring technical expertise. "This paragraph has three different verb tenses - use consistent tense" or "Simplify this 40-word sentence."
User perspective review simulates reader experience. Someone unfamiliar with topic attempts following documentation. Comments identify confusing steps, missing information, or incorrect assumptions. "I could not figure out how to install from these instructions - what am I missing?" Fresh user perspective catches issues expert reviewers miss.
What Common Review Mistakes Should You Avoid?
Never overwhelm writers with hundreds of minor comments. Prioritize. Focus on issues significantly affecting quality. Minor style preferences can wait. Writers receiving 200 comments feel demoralized and struggle prioritizing fixes. Effective review identifies critical issues enabling focused improvement. Quality over quantity for comments.
Avoid subjective style criticism without explanation. "I would say this differently" is not helpful. "This sentence is difficult to parse because of nested clauses - consider breaking into two sentences" explains problem. Subjective preferences without reasoning seem arbitrary. Explained reasoning educates and justifies change.
Do not delay feedback endlessly perfecting review. Timely imperfect review beats delayed perfect review. Writers need feedback while context fresh. Review paralysis helps nobody. Set time limits for reviews. Provide feedback in multiple passes if needed rather than blocking publication for exhaustive single review.
Never rewrite content without writer permission. Unsolicited rewrites feel disrespectful. If content requires extensive rewriting, discuss with writer first. Explain problems and offer to help rewrite collaboratively. Surprise rewrites damage working relationships. Collaborative editing with consent builds better teams than unilateral takeovers.
Targeted technical writing comments improve documentation while teaching writers to improve independently. Focus on high-impact issues, explain reasoning, and respect writer voice. Effective review builds better writers and better documentation simultaneously. Learn to give feedback that helps without taking over. Use River's tools to add targeted technical writing comments to documentation.