Per 
This template innovates standard site crit in two ways: separating the critique into sections and using the Advanced Article Metric Assessment. Hopefully, by making critique more uniform, more critique will appear which the author can effectively implement into their article.
The metrics are thus:
Premise: Given flash fiction's nature, a reader should summarize a skip or tale in one or two sentences. This should be a compelling premise, something that pitches the article effectively and hooks them in. If you can't summarize an article in two sentences or less, it may be too complex, thus losing readers. Note a "summary" constitutes the narrative of the skip as well as its general concept. For instance, "a Foundation task force explores a dimension where all forms of life died at the same time."
Execution: Now that we have a concept, the article should utilize it to its fullest capabilities. What interesting turns does this premise take? How effective are these turns? Is the article all set-up and no pay-off? Don't consider the nuts and bolts of composition here, just the general narrative that engages readers.
Technicals: This involves the nuts and bolts. SPaG, good sentences, believable dialogue, etc. Things that, if improved, could enhance a part of a narrative without fundamentally altering it.
You should elaborate one each metric for at least a paragraph's length (5-6 sentences each), if not longer. Even if you don't have much to say, consider giving examples of where an author went right or wrong to enhance your argument.
The Advanced Article Metric Assessment collates these metrics into one, easy-to-comprehend module. See the collapsible below:
See the full code below:
[[collapsible show="Critique" hide="Hide Critique"]]
**Premise:**
**Execution:**
**Technicals:**
[[/collapsible]]
[[collapsible show="Advanced Article Metric Assessment" hide="Hide Advanced Article Metric Assessment"]]
[[div style="width: 350px; background-image: url("https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2016/03/19/19/15/background-1267303_1280.jpg"); padding-left: 1%; padding-right: 1%; padding-bottom: 1%; float: center; border: 5px solid #333333; border-radius: 10px; margin: auto;"]]
[[=]]
[[size 120%]]**Advanced Metric Article Assessment**[[/size]]
-----
**Premise:** //Insert summary of premise review here//
**Execution:** //Insert summary of execution review here//
**Technicals:** //Insert summary of technicals review here//
@@
@@
[[div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255, 0.6); width: 340px; padding-left: 1%; padding-right: 1%; float: center; border: 1px solid #333333;"]]
//Insert short summary of your general thoughts here//
[[/div]]
@@
@@
[[/=]]
[[/div]]
[[/collapsible]]
As a manor of courtesy to newbies, I'd advise not using the table for new authors, as they may focus more on the flashy module than the review's actual meat. For more experienced authors, the table works fine.
The goal is to critique at least one new article and one random article a day. I emphasize one of each to avoid burn-out. Alone, we achieve little, but together we can handle an entire day's worth of articles. Don't be afraid to critique an article someone has already handled. The more, the better!
