--- name: reviewing-article description: "Multi-pass article review covering logic, evidence, flow, and polish. Systematic quality assurance before publication." ---

# Reviewing Articles

## Overview

Systematic multi-pass review process to ensure article quality. Each pass focuses on one dimension, making issues easier to spot and fix.

**Announce at start:** "I'm using the reviewing-article skill for systematic review."

**Context:** You should have a complete draft from executing-article-plan.

**Save outputs to:** - Review log: `docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-review.md` - Final article: `docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-final.md`

## Four-Pass Review Process

```dot digraph review { "Read full draft" [shape=box]; "Pass 1: Logic" [shape=box]; "Pass 2: Evidence" [shape=box]; "Pass 3: Flow" [shape=box]; "Pass 4: Polish" [shape=box]; "Generate review log" [shape=box]; "Apply fixes" [shape=box]; "Save final article" [shape=doublecircle];

"Read full draft" -> "Pass 1: Logic"; "Pass 1: Logic" -> "Pass 2: Evidence"; "Pass 2: Evidence" -> "Pass 3: Flow"; "Pass 3: Flow" -> "Pass 4: Polish"; "Pass 4: Polish" -> "Generate review log"; "Generate review log" -> "Apply fixes"; "Apply fixes" -> "Save final article"; } ```

## Pass 1: Logic Check

**Focus:** Is the argument coherent and sound?

**Questions to ask:** - [ ] Does the introduction clearly state the core message? - [ ] Does each section support the core message? - [ ] Do conclusions follow logically from premises? - [ ] Are there any logical fallacies? - [ ] Are there contradictions between sections? - [ ] Does the conclusion tie everything together?

**Common issues:** - Thesis buried or unclear - Sections don't support main argument - Circular reasoning - Non-sequiturs - Contradictory claims

**Log format:** ```markdown ### Pass 1: Logic Check

**Issues Found:**

**[CRITICAL]** Section 3, paragraph 2 - **Issue:** Conclusion doesn't follow from premise - **Current:** "X is true, therefore Y must be false" - **Problem:** X and Y aren't mutually exclusive - **Fix:** Revise to show relationship between X and Y

**[MINOR]** Introduction - **Issue:** Core message not explicit enough - **Fix:** Add clear thesis statement at end of intro

**Strengths:** - Section 2 builds argument methodically - Transitions between sections are logical ```

## Pass 2: Evidence Check

**Focus:** Are claims properly supported?

**Questions to ask:** - [ ] Does every claim have supporting evidence? - [ ] Are sources credible and recent? - [ ] Are statistics used correctly? - [ ] Are examples relevant and compelling? - [ ] Are quotes accurate and in context? - [ ] Is the evidence sufficient for the claim?

**Common issues:** - Unsupported assertions - Outdated statistics - Cherry-picked data - Misused quotes - Weak examples - Missing citations

**Log format:** ```markdown ### Pass 2: Evidence Check

**Issues Found:**

**[CRITICAL]** Section 2, paragraph 3 - **Issue:** Statistic lacks source - **Current:** "75% of users prefer..." - **Problem:** No citation provided - **Fix:** Add source or remove claim

**[MODERATE]** Section 4 - **Issue:** Example doesn't support point - **Current:** Using smartphone example to illustrate enterprise software point - **Fix:** Find relevant B2B example

**Evidence Gaps:** - [ ] Section 1 needs concrete example of problem - [ ] Section 3 claim about ROI needs data

**Strengths:** - Section 2 uses case study effectively - Research throughout is well-integrated ```

## Pass 3: Flow Check

**Focus:** Does the article read smoothly?

**Questions to ask:** - [ ] Do paragraphs flow within sections? - [ ] Are transitions between sections smooth? - [ ] Is pacing appropriate? (not rushed/dragging) - [ ] Do sentence lengths vary? - [ ] Is paragraph length appropriate? (2-4 sentences) - [ ] Does the reading experience feel natural?

**Common issues:** - Abrupt topic changes - Repetitive sentence structures - Overly long paragraphs - Missing transitions - Pacing issues (too slow or too fast)

**Log format:** ```markdown ### Pass 3: Flow Check

**Issues Found:**

**[MODERATE]** Section 2 → Section 3 transition - **Issue:** Jarring topic shift - **Current:** Section 2 ends on implementation, Section 3 starts on strategy - **Fix:** Add transition sentence bridging tactical → strategic

**[MINOR]** Section 1, paragraphs 2-5 - **Issue:** All paragraphs same length (3 sentences, similar structure) - **Fix:** Vary paragraph length and structure

**Pacing Notes:** - Introduction moves too slowly (3 paragraphs before thesis) - Section 3 rushes through important concepts - Conclusion feels abrupt

**Strengths:** - Overall arc is clear - Section 2 has excellent paragraph flow ```

## Pass 4: Polish

**Focus:** Grammar, spelling, formatting, style

**Questions to ask:** - [ ] Any grammar/spelling errors? - [ ] Is formatting consistent? (headers, lists, emphasis) - [ ] Is tone consistent throughout? - [ ] Are there unnecessary words? (very, really, just) - [ ] Active voice used where appropriate? - [ ] Are sentences clear and concise?

**Common issues:** - Typos and grammar errors - Inconsistent formatting - Passive voice overuse - Wordy sentences - Filler words - Style inconsistencies

**Log format:** ```markdown ### Pass 4: Polish

**Issues Found:**

**[MINOR]** Throughout - 12 instances of passive voice (see marked locations) - Inconsistent use of Oxford comma - "Very" used 8 times (remove or strengthen word)

**Formatting:** - Section headers: inconsistent capitalization - Lists: mix of periods and no periods - Code blocks: need consistent syntax highlighting

**Word Count:** - Current: 1247 words - Target: 1200 words - Overrun: 47 words (4%) - Action: Acceptable, or trim in conclusion

**Strengths:** - Clean, professional language - Good use of subheaders for scannability - Technical terms explained clearly ```

## Review Log Template

```markdown # [Article Title] - Review Log

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Reviewer:** [Your name/role] **Draft Version:** YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-draft.md **Review Duration:** [time spent]

---

## Executive Summary

**Overall Assessment:** [Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Major Revision Needed]

**Critical Issues:** [count] **Moderate Issues:** [count] **Minor Issues:** [count]

**Estimated Fix Time:** [hours/minutes]

**Recommendation:** [Ready to publish / Needs minor fixes / Needs revision / Needs rewrite]

---

## Pass 1: Logic Check [Details...]

## Pass 2: Evidence Check [Details...]

## Pass 3: Flow Check [Details...]

## Pass 4: Polish [Details...]

---

## Priority Fix List

### Must Fix Before Publishing 1. [Issue with location and fix] 2. [Issue with location and fix]

### Should Fix (Improves Quality) 1. [Issue with location and fix] 2. [Issue with location and fix]

### Nice to Have (Optional) 1. [Issue with location and fix]

---

## Strengths to Preserve

- [What works well - don't change these] - [Particularly effective sections/arguments]

---

## Final Checklist

- [ ] All critical issues fixed - [ ] All moderate issues addressed or documented as accepted - [ ] Word count within acceptable range - [ ] Formatting consistent - [ ] Links/references verified - [ ] Read-through for final polish ```

## Applying Fixes

After generating review log:

1. **Present review summary to user** 2. **For each critical issue:** - Show current text - Explain problem - Propose fix - Get approval 3. **Batch minor/moderate fixes** (unless user wants granular control) 4. **Make changes to draft** 5. **Save as final version**

## Final Article Format

```markdown --- title: [Article Title] date: YYYY-MM-DD status: final word_count: XXXX reviewed: true review_date: YYYY-MM-DD ---

# [Article Title]

[Final polished content...]

---

## Metadata

- **Word Count:** XXXX - **Reading Time:** ~X minutes - **Target Audience:** [from brief] - **Core Message:** [one sentence] - **Published:** [where/when] ```

## Review Quality Standards

**Good review:** - Finds real issues, not nitpicks - Categorizes by severity accurately - Provides actionable fixes - Preserves what works well - Balances critique with recognition

**Warning signs:** - Only surface-level issues found - Contradictory feedback - Vague "make it better" notes - Excessive nitpicking - Missing critical logic flaws

## Completion

After saving final article:

**"Review complete! 📝

**Review Summary:** - Critical issues: [X] → Fixed - Moderate issues: [X] → Fixed - Minor issues: [X] → Fixed

**Final article saved to:** `docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-final.md` **Review log saved to:** `docs/writing/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-review.md`

**Article stats:** - Word count: XXXX - Reading time: ~X minutes - Status: Ready for publication

Would you like me to: 1. Export to specific format (Medium, WordPress, etc.) 2. Generate social media snippets 3. Create summary/abstract 4. Something else"**

## Key Principles

- **Four separate passes** - Don't mix concerns - **Severity matters** - Critical blocks publication, minor doesn't - **Document everything** - Review log is valuable reference - **Fix systematically** - Don't ad-hoc it - **Preserve strengths** - Don't over-edit what works - **Evidence-based critique** - Point to specific issues, not feelings