Get Specific AI Feedback on Your Manuscript

Give the Review an Answerable Question

“Evaluate my novel” invites abstract praise and criticism. Specify the chapter or scene and your main concern: Can readers understand the refusal? Does suspense outlast their interest? Is the change of mind supported? Focus one pass on one main question while listing other clear errors separately.

Supply relevant premises and style. A preference for restrained dialogue means unspoken emotion is not automatically a defect. If readers cannot identify the speaker, the reviewer should still locate the problem. Oh Story’s report method calls for scope, quotations, reader consequences and author decisions; this guide translates that into useful review questions.

Make Each Note Traceable to the Passage

“A flat character” does not justify adding a traumatic childhood. Locate the choice lacking an established motive first. Factual findings need quotations for both premise and triggering event; see continuity checking. This guide also covers pacing, expression and reader experience, whose judgments should not be presented as factual contradictions.

Original Example: Make a Pacing Note Specific

Suppose the author wants readers to wait with Cen Yu for a parcel without revealing its sender. The draft reads:

The doorbell rang. Cen Yu rose from the table and headed toward the entrance. She passed the dining table, crossed the living room, went around the sofa, reached the entrance and opened the door. The courier handed her a box. All she saw on it was her own name.

A vague note says, “Slow pacing; increase suspense.” A useful note says:

Suggested revision: the opening movement from “rose” through “reached the entrance.” Several clauses repeat the journey from table to door. Readers are waiting for the parcel; the route adds no obstacle or clue. Compress the journey while preserving the bell, opening, handoff and recipient-only information. Do not add a coded knock, watcher or sender details to manufacture suspense.

This is a local pacing judgment against a stated goal. If difficult movement is the intended effect, assess obstacles actually present in the manuscript. Do not invent an injury to justify the passage. This example was written for the guide.

Prioritize Without Turning Every Suggestion Into a Rewrite

Oh Story’s author report uses necessary fixes, suggested revisions and optional changes. Internal severity codes need not become the author’s checklist. Prioritize clear factual breaks and unreadable passages; judge pacing and style against the scene’s goal.

For conflicting notes, compare locations and goals. Compressing the walk and allowing a pause at the handoff can coexist because they concern different processes. Hiding and immediately revealing the sender require an author decision, rather than executing both.

This manual requirement can accompany a review request:

For each finding, provide location, a short quotation, reader effect, bounded next step and protected facts. Separate necessary fixes, suggestions and optional changes. State missing evidence and leave style choices to me. Review only [scope] without editing the prose. I will select findings for a separate revision task.

After editing, test the original concern: Has repeated movement decreased, with handoff and information boundaries intact? More flattering evaluation language cannot substitute for those results.

FAQ

Does praise without findings mean the manuscript passed review?

It is insufficient evidence. Confirm the materials and goals checked, and request verifiable results and unresolved limits. Finding no problem differs from performing no meaningful review.

Related reading

• How to Check AI Fiction for Continuity Errors→
• Turn AI manuscript feedback into a focused revision plan→
• Keep your writing voice when AI continues your novel→