@justkt @standback - I think that the question above - as well as this one - is a sort of question we'll be seeing a lot of. I think of them as ultra-short critiques. While they're within the spirit of critique questions, I don't see how they relate to any larger work.

Questions this short verge on being grammar checks or proofreading requests.

Perhaps the way to handle this would be to ask for more of the work in question. It's no good helping someone fix an overlong sentence if the rest of the work is confusing.

Thoughts?

(We'd need to clarify our critique guidelines if we're gonna do this.)

This is pretty cool: Satisfactory Sub-plots, Now With Pictures, by Howard Tayler.

Hello, @LadybugKiller, @TimStone

@NeilFein @justkt : Amusingly, while I don't think these are particularly valuable questions, I do think they're a really good match for our critique guidelines. They're focused; they're digestible; they have a clear goal. They work well independently of larger context.

These two are both questions on good phrasing - and good answers will demonstrate how "better" phrasing can be accomplished.

They're not grammar or proofreading questions. They are "edit this sentence" or "phrase this better". But that's not too bad, because they know just what they're looking for, and that's not something people can do for a whole document - just a specific bit they're having specific troubles with.

Almost all critique questions are inherently going to be "too localized." That's not a strike against them, as long as we define critiques to be on-topic.

@standback - If we ever get questions asking "what is irony", we can point them at this discussion. :)