Sometimes I look at a story & think what rubbish, so refrain from commenting rather than crush someone's fragile hopes (after all sending your work 'out there' can be like taking off your clothes in public). Then I will see that others have added valuable feedback. What is the best/most useful way to approach reviewing someone else's work?
A critic critique's the work of others that they couldn't write themselves, seldom do professional authors critique someone else's work.
If I had a rule about writing it would be this, 'You are not qualified to critique my work or anybody else's work unless you yourself are a published author.
A friend of mine worked for ten years as a writer on Coronation street in the days of old. He spent more time responding to critics than actually writing scripts. So he built a profile of every critic (without knowing who they were) and added the banal/mundane/shallow/misguided types of points/questions/changes they would make then gave it to the top dog. The critiques died overnight.
Sadly it's back. Dramaturgs/Literary Editors/Whatever they call themselves these days constantly try to rewrite the work into something they want but couldn't write.
I'm not making this up - William Golding had to rewrite Lord Of The Flies because of an editor...
Everyone has posted their two cents' worth. This is the best interaction by far. It is so good to read the views posted. We all have different views but there is also an element of similarity sprinkling here and there in all our views.
I've become wary of asking for critics to comment but I can tell you which pieces of advice I found useful: 'I wanted vividness, to hear your protagonists' footsteps on the stairs' (a lovely way of saying you are being turgid.) 'Try writing the synopsis, then you will realise that the storyline is getting lost.' (it's a non-fail acid test). Read Robert McKee's 'Story' (a revelation of a book).