Three Levels of Revision
It is helpful to respond through a hierarchy of concerns from higher to lower order.
Global Re-vision: To engage a writer in deep revision, in actually re-thinking or re-seeing their work, we need to invite them to work at the macro level. Our comments should be aimed at ideas, whether the draft follows the assignment, whether the draft addresses the appropriate problem or question, quality of the argument, whether there is too much or not enough information.
Organizational Re-vision: This level of revision can be imagined as reshaping and reworking. Our comments should be directed at whether the draft is effectively organized at the macro level. As we comment we can ask such questions as can the draft be outlined or diagramed? What should be added? What should be eliminated? Does the reader have enough sign posts to follow? Are there gaps in logic, evidence, or information? Are there transitions where there need to be? We can also direct our comments at the micro-level. Are paragraphs coherent? Is the paragraph too long? Too short? Trying to cover too many points?
Polishing Re-vision: Under most circumstances you should be concerned with commenting on these in later drafts. Too often we have been asked to “revise” (the above operations) when what teachers really wanted was for students to polish and proofread. We often jump to this lower-level concern too quickly because these errors are easy to spot. Yes, grammatical errors, misspellings, etc. are an annoyance and important to “clean up.” When helping another student with polishing and proofing, look for the “patterns of errors” that they make and explain how to fix one or two of these. (While we have a tendency to count individual errors, writers are usually making one or two errors over and over again.)