I looked at a few reviews for a book I thought about buying. I could immediately tell which reviews were written by writers or aspiring writers,. They read like critiques. If I read those reviews as a reader, I would have no idea what they were talking about.
A lot of the writing "guidelines" were listed. For example:
"The author did too much telling and not enough showing."
"There were no scene breaks between pov's. I got confused about whose head I was supposed to be in."
"There were too many "ly" adverbs."
"The prologue was unnecessary. It read like backstory. A lot of it could have been sprinkled throughout the story."
As a reader, I would have would have no clue what the problem was. As a matter of fact, I would have looked at the reviews that didn't read like you needed a master's degree in literature to figure out what the hell they were talking about.
When I write a review, I write from a reader's point of view, so a reader can understand what I'm talking about. Most of the books I loved as a reader were apparently not good writing according the "guidelines." I disagree. To me, they were great books. So I'm wondering. When you write a review, do you review as a reader or a writer?