I'm just in the process of editing A Norman Legacy (working title) and, again, I find suggestions from members of my historical critique group vital for the flow of the storyline.
As with Highland Arms - where I was a member of a lovely critique group of romance writers turned friends - the comments and eagle eyes of critique partners are invaluable. However often you read through your chapters, critique partners always find little niggles, typos or inconsistencies you overlook as a writer. Duplication such as a cup emptied at one point, then emptied again a few paragraphs down, might escape my eye but you can be sure someone else spots it!
Some writers have just one critique partner - a writer friend of the same or even a different genre - while others prefer input from several writers. I'm in the latter category. I value comments from writers of the same genre as their research into certain areas might be more in-depth than mine. They may spot historical boo-boos which sneaked in, or modern phraseology which ruins the reading experience of those expert readers of historical fiction. A critical reader myself, I'm grateful for any such help.
Some writers go all the way without any input from others, focusing instead on their own edits. I find this tough as I like to consider suggestions from others which might fit into the story perfectly.
So which category of writer do you belong to? Do you prefer one person critiquing your work, or a group of like-minded writers all picking your work apart? Or are you a 'go alone' writer?
Let's hear it from other writers! :-)