How to give presentation feedback: useful examples and a clear next step
Dylan de Heer
Useful presentation feedback tells the speaker what you observed, how it affected your understanding and what they could keep or try next. Start with the presentation's purpose and audience. Refer to a specific moment, separate your interpretation from the evidence, and agree one worthwhile change to practise.
“Be more confident” leaves a speaker guessing. “I lost the recommendation between the three options; could you state your preferred option before comparing them?” gives them something they can change.
This guide is for colleagues, managers and peers reviewing a workplace presentation, pitch or rehearsal. It includes a practical review process and invented examples you can adapt. Formal assessment needs the organisation's actual marking criteria; these suggestions are not a substitute for them.
Before giving feedback, agree what the presentation needs to do
A useful review of a sales pitch may differ from a review of a research briefing. Before the talk, or before a rehearsal, ask the speaker:
Who needs to understand or decide something?
What should they know or do afterwards?
Which part would you particularly like feedback on?
Are we reviewing a rough structure, a polished delivery or both?
Would you prefer immediate comments or a separate conversation?
For a decision briefing, you might agree to review whether the recommendation, evidence and requested decision are clear. For a training session, you might check whether a participant can explain and apply the procedure. A lively presentation can still miss its purpose; a calm, concise briefing can achieve it.
Agree the available evidence too. Were you in the room, watching a video or listening to audio? An audio recording can support comments about the words spoken and audible delivery. It cannot establish eye contact, gestures or the readability of a slide. Avoid turning an incomplete view into a judgement about the whole presentation.
The UCLA Graduate Writing Center's oral presentation feedback form separates content, communication, delivery and visual aids. That is a useful reminder to examine different aspects deliberately rather than reducing everything to whether a speaker seemed confident.
Step 1: collect a few specific observations
Take short notes while listening. Capture the moment and what happened before deciding what it means. If you have permission to record, a timestamp can help you revisit a passage accurately. Otherwise, a section name or the speaker's own phrase is enough to locate it.
Compare these notes:
Judgement: “The introduction was weak.”
Observation: “The first section described the team and the project history. I first heard the decision being requested after the third example.”
Question to check: “Was the audience already familiar with the project, or did they need that background?”
The last question matters. What seems unnecessary to you may be necessary for someone else. Your notes should leave room for the speaker to explain their choice.
Record strengths with the same care. “The comparison between the two delivery options helped me see why the cheaper option carried more risk” explains what to retain. General praise alone does not identify a repeatable choice.
Do not transcribe every hesitation or tally every filler word unless that is relevant to the agreed goal. If the audience understood the message, a minor verbal habit may be a lower priority than an unsupported claim or an unclear request.
Step 2: distinguish the evidence, your response and your suggestion
Build a comment from three parts:
What you observed: identify a passage or visible action you actually witnessed.
What happened for you: explain your understanding, uncertainty or difficulty.
What to try: suggest an achievable change, or ask the speaker to propose one.
For example: “When you introduced the forecast, you gave three percentages before explaining the baseline. I wasn't sure what each figure was compared with. Could you name the baseline first, then show the change?”
This structure is a practical writing aid, not a validated scoring system. It helps make the reasoning behind your feedback inspectable. The speaker can disagree with the interpretation without having to deny that the moment occurred.
Use first-person language for your reaction. “I couldn't follow the transition” is more defensible than “Nobody understood you.” If you have actual audience responses, describe their source and scope rather than speaking for everyone.
Step 3: prioritise the change that serves the audience
Before delivering your comments, ask which observation most affects the presentation's goal. A practical order is to check the message and factual accuracy, then the organisation of the explanation, then delivery and supporting visuals where you have evidence for them.
This is a review heuristic, not a rule that delivery is always secondary. If people cannot hear the speaker, audibility needs attention first. If a chart communicates a misleading comparison, correcting it may matter more than improving the opening.
Choose a small number of priorities. You could say: “The examples are useful. The main change I'd suggest is making the requested decision explicit at the beginning and end.” Save minor edits for a separate pass if the speaker wants them.
Avoid vague personality labels such as “natural presenter”, “not leadership material” or “too quiet as a person”. Discuss the choices needed for this presentation. Do not prescribe a particular accent, mannerism or extroverted style as the only credible way to communicate. Ask about access needs and use the agreed task criteria.
Step 4: give the feedback in a conversation
Choose a suitable moment and explain the purpose. A rehearsal may allow an immediate pause and another attempt. A public event may call for a private conversation afterwards, particularly when feedback is sensitive.
The presentation-training provider SecondNature recommends agreeing the timing and purpose, making specific observations and suggestions, and arranging a review. Treat that as practitioner guidance, not evidence that one fixed feedback formula works for every person.
Invite the speaker's assessment first: “What felt clear, and where did you lose your thread?” Then share the observations that relate to the agreed goal. Make room for clarification: “What were you trying to achieve with that section?”
You do not need to manufacture a compliment to surround a criticism. Identify a genuine strength where you observed one, explain the improvement clearly, and avoid hiding the main issue inside reassuring language.
Presentation feedback examples you can adapt
These are fictional workplace examples. Each comment needs to match what actually happened in the presentation you reviewed.
When the opening works
“Your first sentence named the decision we needed to make. That helped me understand why the following evidence mattered. Keep that direct opening when you revise the rest.”
This identifies the useful choice and its effect, rather than simply calling the talk excellent.
When the purpose arrives too late
“I heard the background and three project updates before I knew what you wanted us to approve. Could you open with the decision and use the background to support it?”
Check whether the audience already has the context before recommending a shorter introduction.
When there is too much detail
“In the implementation section, I couldn't tell which two dependencies could change the launch decision. Could you lead with those and keep the lower-risk details available for questions?”
This is more useful than “Make it shorter”: it gives a reason and a way to choose what stays.
When evidence needs qualification
“You described the pilot result as a general customer preference. The slide showed responses from one small group. Could you state who took part and what we still don't know?”
Verify the underlying information before asserting that a claim is wrong. A review should not replace one unsupported conclusion with another.
When the speaker moves too quickly
“After introducing the two options, you moved straight into the cost comparison. I was still working out how they differed. Could you pause after naming each option and summarise the distinction before the figures?”
This links pace to a particular comprehension problem. It does not assume a universal ideal speaking speed.
When a slide is difficult to use
“From my seat, I couldn't read the labels on the cost chart. Could you simplify the chart and check the smallest labels from the back of the room?”
Use this only if you saw the slide in relevant conditions. A transcript cannot prove that a chart was illegible.
When an answer misses the question
“The question asked when the team would need extra support. Your answer explained why the project matters, but I still didn't know the likely timing. Could you answer the timing question first, then add the context?”
Check the question and answer together. A short excerpt can omit an answer given a moment later.
When the conclusion is clear
“You ended by naming the owner, the decision needed and the next review point. I knew what would happen after the meeting. Keep that concrete ending.”
The wording recognises an observable result without claiming that everyone in the audience felt the same.
Step 5: turn the comment into a rehearsal task
Feedback becomes easier to use when the speaker knows what to practise and how to review the attempt. Agree a task that fits the priority, rather than asking them to improve everything at once.
Suppose the priority is an unclear recommendation. A useful next task is to rewrite and rehearse the opening, then ask a listener who did not see the revision to state the recommendation and decision being requested. If the listener cannot identify them, revisit the wording and context together.
For a dense explanation, rehearse one section with fewer terms and a concrete example. Ask the listener to explain the point back in their own words. For audibility or slide readability, check the actual room or call setup. These are practical checks of the revised presentation, not proof of lasting skill improvement.
Write down the change, who will review it and when. If the issue becomes a team follow-up, use your normal action-item tracking process rather than leaving it as an informal promise.
Step 6: use recordings to check comments, with clear limits
With everyone's agreement and the appropriate permission for the setting, a recording can help you locate the explanation or answer being discussed. Keep the presentation and the feedback conversation distinguishable so a listener's comment does not become attributed to the presenter.
Weeve can record and transcribe supported audio and help you work with saved conversations. In Chat with recordings, you can ask for a draft of feedback themes or proposed practice actions, then follow the available sources and check the original passage. A generated summary may omit context or introduce an inaccurate interpretation; review it before sharing.
Demonstration content: this genuine Weeve export shows source references for a fictional planning conversation, not an evaluated presentation.
Audio and text do not establish the quality of slides, eye contact or posture. Weeve does not automatically provide a validated presentation score. Observe visual delivery separately if it is part of the review.
Choose the processing route deliberately. Weeve supports local processing; optional external ChatGPT or Claude connections can send relevant text to the chosen service. Review the source material, sharing permissions and destination before using sensitive presentation or employee-feedback content. Share only what the recipient needs.
How should you handle disagreement or conflicting feedback?
Ask each reviewer for the passage, the effect they experienced and the intended audience. “More detail” and “less detail” may come from people with different prior knowledge. Decide which audience the presentation must serve, then test a revision against that goal.
If the speaker disagrees, compare the evidence and ask what a useful next check would be. You can retain a clear observation while withdrawing an inference that the evidence does not support. Feedback is an input to revision; the accountable speaker or assessor still makes the relevant decision.
What if you only have a written transcript?
Limit your comments to what the text supports: the stated purpose, structure, reasoning, terminology and answers. Check audio before commenting on pauses, emphasis or apparent interruptions, because transcription can misrepresent them. Leave visual-delivery judgements open.
End the review with one sentence both people understand: what should stay, what will change and how the next attempt will be checked. That gives the speaker a concrete place to begin.
