My past experiences with peer review is that its been too nice. People are always paranoid that you will be too harsh so you are not as critical as you should. I would tend to give and receive mainly complements on what I did where I should give and receive critical analysis on what I need to do. Straub does touch on the stuff that I’ve noticed like how people are too nice in their peer review. Straub also touched on how our peer reviews should be specific and lengthy if needed because I find they are usually vague and short. The problem with peer reviews is just people can be really lazy.
The first impression the reading made on me was when the title said “is it okay to be short and sweet?” then the first line of that section is “no. at least most of the time.” That to me said that it should not be short because I need help out my fellow peers and I also would want good peer reviews. The second impression I had from the article was how to present my comments. I always knew I should be critical of people to help them but I usually was afraid. I need to tell the writer what is working and what is not working so they can know what they need to improve on.
One thing I will do to become a better peer editor is that I will be more critical of peoples works and less “nice” but not in a mean way just in a more helpful and constructive way. I want to help others to become better writers as well as I want to become a better writer. I will also try to make the peer reviewed work sound more like it came from me rather than me trying to play the part of the teacher. I think if it sounds more personal people are more likely to listen to it and take my advice.