Give feedback on work without judging the person

‘This is careless’ leaves the recipient defending their character. ‘The three service names differ from the approved list’ identifies something that can be corrected. Feedback becomes easier to use when it describes the work rather than guessing what the person was thinking.

Start by checking which kind of response is wanted. A rough concept needs a different review from a nearly final document. Criticising punctuation in an early structure discussion can distract from a larger problem; proposing a new concept during a final factual check can reopen decisions without acknowledging the cost.

Separate observation, effect and suggestion

An observation describes what is on the page, screen or recording. The effect explains how it may influence the reader or the agreed task. A suggestion offers one route forward. These parts can fit into a few sentences without sounding like a formal assessment.

For example: ‘The opening paragraph names three audiences. I cannot tell which one this service page is intended to address. Could we lead with the first-time buyer and move the partner information elsewhere?’ This is a hypothetical editorial comment. It gives the writer a specific issue and a proposed solution while leaving room for a better answer.

Distinguish a requirement from a preference. An incorrect price must be fixed. A preference for a shorter heading may be negotiable. Marking everything as equally urgent prevents the recipient from prioritising and makes subjective taste look like an objective defect.

Do not make them decode your mood

A vague ‘not quite there’ may feel gentle but often creates more anxiety than a direct explanation. Name the part that is not working and connect it to the brief. If you cannot explain the problem yet, ask a question or request a discussion rather than supplying a pile of tentative edits.

Keep praise equally specific. ‘The example makes the handover problem easy to understand’ tells the writer what to preserve. A general compliment followed by an unrelated criticism can feel like a ritual rather than a useful assessment. You do not need to balance every correction with a matching compliment.

Choose a private conversation when the feedback is sensitive or concerns a recurring working issue. A public document comment is suitable for resolving an editorial question, not for delivering a judgement about someone's attitude. If emotions are high, establish the facts and intended outcome before drafting the message.

Close the loop by agreeing what should change and what can stay. If several reviewers are involved, one person should reconcile contradictory requests before the author revises. The goal is a better piece of work, not evidence that every reviewer has left a mark.