**What’s the most helpful or informative piece we had in the paper?**
**What’s the most distinctive story aimed at our college audience?**
**Something I learned from today’s paper.**
**A lede that really works.**
**A risk with design, photography or writing.**
**A photograph that tells a story in itself.**
**Eye-catching design in the newspaper.**
**A headline that grabs readers into a story.**
**Mistakes to learn from and avoid next time.**
**Other special praise.**

The only problem we ran into is, as students and top editors we were busy, and as you mentioned, doing the critique every day was time consuming, so sometimes (like during midterms) we would miss a day or two because there simply wasn’t time. Other than that, remaining positive and constructive was sometimes a challenge. We had a steady stream of staffers who were quick to point out any and all errors, and the critique could probably have degenerated into a list of what we did wrong and some days it did. But as you can tell by the headings, the ideas was to remain upbeat and give constructive feedback.

At my paper now (about 40K daily), the editor and managing editor take turns on a daily memo similar to the DKS daily critiques. It starts with discussion of stories/design/photos/whatever worked or didn’t. Then picks out examples of good ledes, photographs and sourcing, etc. Sometimes its more negative than others — you can almost gauge the mood of the newsroom that day by what the memo says.

I’m glad we have the memo though, even when I get called out for a story that could have been better or a dumb mistake. Because good AND bad, that memo is pretty much the main source of feedback the newsroom gets on its work.