Below are some common criticisms we have given to past submissions. We reproduce them on this page as we believe it will help contributors avoid common pitfalls, saving them time and improving the quality of their work.

• Justify the word count– as a general rule, 600 words is the starting length of an article, and anything greater than 1,200 words in length starts to become a time commitment for someone to read. Please appraise every sentence you add to an article and think: ‘is this necessary? Does it contribute to what I’m trying to convey to the reader, or does it just repeat what I’ve already said? Am I using this paragraph to make an original point?‘
  
  
• Research before you start writing– You need to take the time to read about your subject, not just to deepen your own understanding, but also to share this learning with your readers. You need to be able to condense the key information on a topic to a reader so he/she has the baseline of knowledge they’d need to follow your arguments. Your research need not be reams of books and academic texts: a couple of hours spent reading articles will boost your understanding of the subject. Researching like this also helps to furnish your article with interesting points of discussion that you would’ve otherwise overlooked. It is also beneficial for you to include some of your previous reading as useful hyperlinks in the text, so the reader can see your evidence and perform their own research.
  
  
• Avoid rhetorical tone– Challenge is aimed at a readership of communists. We’re all on the same political page. Rhetoric is fine in a speech, but completely out of place and grating to read in our journal. Hyperbolising, for example, the Conservative government’s immigration policy as ‘fascist’ would be considered inappropriate for a nuanced magazine article. You should be seeking to convey a sober understanding of a subject after you have taken the time to research and consider it, not just affirm how you might reactively feel about it.

   

• Don’t ‘strawman’ the opposing argument– There is nothing interesting about a piece of text that just lambasts an opposing idea from beginning to end. This is not a serious critique. You need to give a satisfying explanation for your argument that shows you’ve sincerely engaged with the ideas you oppose, and ultimately demonstrate why, even when interpreted in the best possible faith, it is discredited.

   

• Don’t underestimate structure– It is important to bear in mind that the reader does not know what you mean: they can only interpret what you have written. Your job as a writer is not to get your immediate thoughts around a subject written down: it is to structure your article in a way that the reader has the best possible chance of interpreting your thoughts. This means using structure: start with an introduction, use the main body for your discursive points, before summarising and making a final judgement that links back to the introduction in the conclusion. You should use clear and concise sentences, with consecutive paragraphs that each support a point.
  
  

As one final piece of writing advice, we’d like to emphasise the importance of constant rereading of your work and self-evaluation. Reading your work aloud to yourself gives you immediate feedback that will let you know that your draft ‘sounds alright’.