Editorial Review and Quality Assurance

Structural Edit Review

Evaluate whether a draft's purpose, order, argument, completeness, examples, and emphasis help a defined reader complete the intended task.

Free editable Markdown · Developmental editors, managing editors, and writers · Updated July 30, 2026

Download Markdown

Accessible HTML preview

Blank template

The downloaded file contains the same fields in editable Markdown.

Review context

Draft title and version: [Enter title/version]
Writer and editor: [Enter names]
Intended reader: [Describe situation and prior knowledge]
Primary question: [Write one question]
Promised outcome: [What should the reader understand or complete?]
Scope and exclusions: [State boundaries]
Required action or next step: [Describe]

Reverse outline

Duplicate for every section.

Section heading and location: [Enter]
Section job: [Answer / Explain / Prove / Demonstrate / Warn / Direct]
New information introduced: [Summarize]
Evidence or example used: [List]
Connection to previous section: [Explain]
Reader question remaining afterward: [Write or None]
Decision: [Keep / Move / Merge / Split / Replace / Remove]

Structure checks

The opening gives context and a direct answer appropriate to the intent.
Each section contributes something necessary and distinct.
Terms and prerequisites appear before readers need them.
Recommendations follow reasons, evidence, and important limitations.
Examples clarify the nearby idea rather than introduce a different scope.
Headings form a meaningful outline when read on their own.
The ending completes the promised outcome and offers a logical next step.

Revision plan

Must-fix change one: [Action, reader problem, desired result]
Must-fix change two: [Action, reader problem, desired result]
Must-fix change three: [Action, reader problem, desired result]
Material to add: [Evidence, explanation, example, or recovery step]
Material to remove or combine: [List]
Issues requiring source or expert review: [List]
Optional experiment: [Alternative framing or sequence]
Revision owner and deadline: [Name, YYYY-MM-DD]

Recheck

Revised draft version: [Enter]
Reverse outline repeated: [Yes / No]
Outcome now supported: [Yes / No / Partly and why]
Remaining structural risk: [Describe or None]
Ready for copyedit: [Yes / No]
Editor signoff and date: [Name, YYYY-MM-DD]

How to use this template

Restate the audience, purpose, promised outcome, and boundaries from the approved brief.
Build a reverse outline showing the job and new contribution of every section.
Trace the argument or task sequence, evidence, examples, limitations, and transitions.
Prioritize structural changes by their effect on reader comprehension and completion.
Review the revised outline before beginning detailed copyediting and proofreading.

Reconstruct the reader's route through the draft

Start without changing prose. Write the intended reader, their starting knowledge, the question bringing them to the page, and the useful outcome promised by the brief. Then create a reverse outline: for every section, note what job it performs, the new information it contributes, and why it appears at that moment. This reveals repeated sections, missing transitions, and headings that label topics without advancing the reader's task. A strong opening establishes relevance and gives an appropriate direct answer; it does not delay substance with generic scene-setting. The ending should complete the promised task or direct the reader to a logical next action rather than merely repeat the introduction.

Test argument, evidence, and emphasis together

Structure is not only heading order. Trace each conclusion to its reasons and evidence. Check whether examples arrive before a concept is explained, whether an important limitation is buried after a recommendation, or whether a minor detail receives more space than the decision it supports. Mark claims that need sources, sections that depend on unproven assumptions, and abrupt changes in audience or scope. For instructional content, verify prerequisites, sequence, decision points, expected results, and recovery steps. For explanatory content, distinguish established facts, interpretation, uncertainty, and the author's own position so readers can understand the basis of the argument.

Deliver an actionable revision plan

Avoid comments such as “flow feels off” unless they identify a reader problem and proposed solution. Prioritize a small number of structural moves: combine two overlapping sections, move a limitation before the recommendation, add a missing comparison, or remove a detour. Explain which outcome each change protects. Separate must-fix issues from optional experiments and sentence-level notes. When the draft changes substantially, repeat the reverse outline and check that references, headings, examples, and calls to action still align. The author should know what to move, add, remove, or reframe and how the editor will determine that revision succeeded.

See the fields in context

Fictional example: account recovery guide

BrightDesk is an invented product. The example describes an imaginary draft and not a real account-recovery process.

Reader outcome: Regain access or know when to contact support.
Structural problem: The fictional draft presents troubleshooting before explaining the required recovery email and puts the lockout warning at the end.
Must-fix move: Place prerequisites and the lockout warning before numbered actions.
Must-fix addition: Add expected confirmation screens and a recovery path when the email never arrives.
Recheck result: The revised outline now follows prepare, request, confirm, recover, and escalate.

Frequently asked questions

How is structural editing different from copyediting?

Structural editing addresses purpose, completeness, order, argument, and emphasis. Copyediting improves language and consistency after those larger decisions are stable.

Must the editor rewrite the outline?

Not always. A reverse outline may show that the order works. Its value is making each section's role visible and giving revisions a shared rationale.

What if a draft serves two audiences?

Identify whether they share the same task and knowledge. If their routes materially differ, separate paths, progressive detail, or distinct pages may serve them better.

When is the structural review complete?

When the revised draft supports its promised outcome, every section has a necessary role, major evidence gaps are assigned, and the work is stable enough for line-level editing.