What Good Editorial Feedback Actually Looks Like
Most editorial feedback does one of two things.
It says nothing useful β "great job," "maybe tighten this up," "this part could be stronger" β which sends your writer back to a draft they still don't know how to fix.
Or it can say too much β line edits for every sentence, structural rewrites, tracked changes that amount to rewriting the piece yourself β and sends your writer back to a draft that is now yours, not theirs.
None of this produces better writing.
The first one produces frustration, the second dependency.
The good version of all this is harder to do and almost nobody teaches it.
Here's what it actually looks like.
The First Question to Ask
Before you give a single note, ask yourself:
what is this piece supposed to do?
Not "is it good writing" β that's a secondary question right now. The #1 question is whether it achieves its purpose. A piece that is beautifully written but aimed at the wrong audience, or beautifully written but buried under the wrong headline, or beautifully written but missing the one argument the reader needed to hear β this is a piece that has not done its job, regardless of the sentence quality.
the beauty of a plumber's work does not matter to the person with the broken toilet. They have a need and ornamentation doesn't enter into it.
So we ask the piece, "why were you written?"
Most editorial feedback skips this question entirely and goes straight to the writing. you're giving notes on the execution of something that could need a different direction entirely.
Start with the direction. Then evaluate the execution.
The Note That Actually Helps
Good editorial feedback has a specific structure. It:
explains its effect on the reader
and β crucially β does not prescribe the fix.
That last part is the one we all get wrong most consistently.
When you prescribe the fix, you've taken the problem away from the writer. They implement your solution, and now the piece thinks like you, not them. And it also means they haven't learned anything. The next time the same problem appears, and it will, they are going to need you again.
The move: describe what you experience as a reader when you hit the problem.
"I lose the thread here β I'm not sure what the previous paragraph was building toward." "This feels like the real argument, but it's buried in paragraph seven. I almost missed it." "I don't know who this is for by the time I reach the CTA."
That feedback gives the writer exactly what they need: a precise location, a clear effect, and room to find their own solution. The writing that comes back will be better, and it will be theirs.
There's a category of feedback that is technically accurate and completely useless: the kind that tells a writer what's wrong without helping them understand why, or delivers the critique in a way that makes them feel stupid for not having seen it themselves. It arrives fresh from your ego.
"This doesn't work." Doesn't work how? For whom? Compared to what?
"This is too long." Too long for the format? For the audience? Because it's repetitive, or because the central argument is weak and padding is covering for it?
"I'm not sure about the tone." You're not sure about it in what direction? More formal? More personal? More confident? What in the current tone is creating the problem you're sensing?
Imprecise feedback is not neutral. It creates anxiety without direction: surely the least productive state a writer can be in.
If you can't be specific about what isn't working, sit with the piece longer before you give your notes. Vague feedback is worse than no feedback.
The Feedback That Develops Writers
The goal of good editorial feedback is not to fix the piece.
It's to help the writer fix the piece β in a way that makes them better at fixing pieces.
Worthwhile notes are calibrated to what the writer can actually learn from. An early-career writer needs different notes than a veteran β not because the problems are different, but because the vocabulary they have for understanding those problems is different.
It means being honest about what's working as well as what isn't. Writers who only ever receive corrective feedback stop trusting their own instincts β they start writing toward your approval, rather than toward their reader.
That's the opposite of what you want. If you find, deep inside, that it isn't β that you like this, that you like being smarter, better, needed β take this information to your therapist and leave it on her couch and come back in a better, more professional headspace.
Good feedback takes the time to explain the why behind the note, not just the what. Not "this opening isn't working" but "this opening spends three sentences on context the reader doesn't need before giving them a reason to keep reading."
The note + the reason is what makes it educational, rather than just directive.
One category of feedback deserves special mention: the structural note, which is the hardest to give and conceptualize, but by far the most valuable.
Structural problems are not problems with sentences. They're problems with the logic of the piece β the argument comes in the wrong order, the most important point is in a weird place, or it answers a question the reader wasn't actually asking, or it answers a dumb question that no actual thinking person would wonder about in the first place. this is about respect for your reader, too.
These are problems that cannot be fixed at the sentence level. Many writers and editors, the best of us sometimes, instinctively try to fix them that way β tightening the language, adding transitions, moving paragraphs around β but the piece still doesn't work, because the underlying structure is wrong.
A good structural note names the architecture problem specifically: "The piece argues X, but leads with Y, which sets up an expectation the piece then doesn't meet." Or: "The reader needs to understand Z before they can follow the argument about W β but Z doesn't appear until paragraph five."
These notes require the most trust between editor and writer. They also produce the most significant improvement in the work.
Why This Matters at Scale
If you're managing a writing team or running a content operation that depends on multiple contributors, your editorial feedback is the single biggest lever you have for the quality of your content.
Better feedback produces better drafts, which means less revision time, which means the same budget produces more publishable content. It also produces writers who get better over time, which means the ceiling on your content quality keeps rising.
Most content setups don't think about editorial feedback as a strategic asset. They think about it as a bottleneck β the thing that slows down the calendar.
But do you want to win the race? or do you want to get there quicker? Because it's the editor that treats editing as a skill worth developing, which is really all we're talking about, that gets and scales the best content.
That's not a coincidence.
And if it sounds too hard, ask yourself whether you could use some fractional editorial leadership? Let's chat about that some time, if so. sooner the better.
Jacob Clifton is the principal of Clifton Creative, an editorial strategy consultancy based in Austin, Texas. He spent fourteen years as a flagship staff writer at Television Without Pity and has written for Reactor Magazine, Vulture, BuzzFeed News, and the Austin Chronicle.
Source: What Good Editorial Feedback Actually Looks Like
snowghoul
tangentwithtanner
dededos
2087
theartofmadeline
baratheonpilled
turnnoffyourmind
