critical review assignment examples

How to Write Critical Reviews

When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.

Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.

Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.

Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.

Understanding the Assignment

To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.

Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.

Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!

Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.

Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.

Write the introduction

Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.

Introduce your review appropriately

Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.

If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.

If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.

Explain relationships

For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.

Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.

In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.

Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).

As you write, consider the following questions:

• Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
• Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
• What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
• What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?

Provide an overview

In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.

Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.

The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.

• What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
• How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?

Write the body

The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.

Organize using a logical plan

Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:

• First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
• Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.

Questions to keep in mind as you write

With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:

• What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
• What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
• Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
• Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
• Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.

Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.

And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.

Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.

Write the conclusion

You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.

You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.

Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.

Consider the following questions:

• Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
• How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
• How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
• What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?

Academic and Professional Writing

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics

Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing

Job Materials and Application Essays

Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs

• Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
• Guided brainstorming exercises
• Get more help with your essay
• Frequently Asked Questions

Resume Writing Tips

CV Writing Tips

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Writing Critical Reviews

Dawn Atkinson

Chapter Overview

This chapter aims to help you build strong arguments in your own work by learning to write critical reviews, or critiques , of texts. A critical review requires a close examination of the argument presented in a text (analysis) and a subsequent explanation of how effective the argument is (evaluation). Critiques are assigned in both academic and technical writing classes because they encourage critical reading practices; in other words, this type of assignment calls for a sharp eye to discern what a piece says and how it communicates in order to arrive at a reasoned judgement about its argument. Ultimately, a critical review may discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of a document.

How might the skills used to develop a critical review be applicable in a workplace setting?

Understand Expectations before Starting a Critical Review Assignment

As with any assignment, make sure you understand the expectations for a critical review before beginning work on it. Pay attention to specifications regarding the paper’s audience, purpose, genre, and design; in addition, determine how many and what type of sources are required. You may be asked to restrict your evidentiary source list to the document under review rather than search for additional sources. Read the critical review directions carefully, and approach your instructor if you have unresolved questions.

Read a Text Closely to Prepare for a Critical Review

A critical review requires close engagement with a text: you cannot effectively analyze and evaluate a document if you have not read and attempted to comprehend it. To develop a broad understanding of a text’s focus and composition, begin by previewing the document. While other chapters of this textbook discuss previewing in detail, Figure 1, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020c), offers a reminder of how to undertake this activity.

Figure 1. How to preview a text before reading it in full

  Previewing should give you an overall sense of what the text is about, how it is organized, and what information it contains.

After previewing the piece, it is time to read it though, while keeping the assignment purpose in mind. Because a critical review demands close work with a text, be prepared to annotate as you read by reflecting on the document’s content and meaning, recording comments and questions in the margin, highlighting important examples and evidence, underlining and defining new vocabulary, and making notes about your reactions to the text. These activities can facilitate understanding of and connection with a piece, aspects crucial to writing a successful critical review.

Your active engagement with the text should continue even after you have read it in full. To illustrate, you can use the prompts in Figure 2, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020a), to investigate the author’s intent for writing the document.

Figure 2. Prompts for evaluating an author’s intent

In addition to evaluating an author’s intent, think carefully about your own reactions to the text as a means to interrogate it further. The following questions, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020d) and Student Academic Success Services at Queen’s University (2018, “Strengths/Weaknesses”), may help in this regard.

• What, if anything, about the reading is unclear? Why is it unclear?
• Does the text deliver on the promises it made in its title and introduction?
• Do you find the author’s writing style persuasive? Why or why not?
• Are the author’s arguments logical? Do they make sense?
• Are points illustrated with relevant and comprehensible examples?
• What kind of evidence does the author provide to support claims? Given the purpose of the piece and its audience, is the evidence from suitable sources?
• Is the evidence relevant? Is it sufficient? Is it credible?
• Does the author supply stated or unstated reasons to support claims?
• Does the author consider alternative points of view, reasons, and evidence?
• How does the reading compare with other texts on the same topic?
• What ideas do you find most thought-provoking?
• What points do you want to investigate further?

The activities described here are intended to promote active engagement with a reading for purposes of eliciting a critical response to it.

Take Advantage of Opportunities to Discuss the Text

Discussions can sometimes inspire thoughtful reflection about a text and clarify lingering uncertainties, so seize opportunities to discuss the document with your classmates. If your instructor schedules a seminar or class discussion period to focus on the text, aim to get as much out of it as you can by preparing in advance, by contributing during the activity, and by reflecting on the experience afterward. Figure 3, adapted from McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph (n.d.), shares tips for participating in class discussions.

Can you think of any other advice you would add to the visual?

Figure 3. How to take part in class discussions

Always be respectful of others’ ideas during a class discussion to encourage a positive and productive session. Remember that one of the reasons to engage in discussion is to hear viewpoints different from your own—ultimately these viewpoints may help to refine your own understanding of the reading.

Meeting with your instructor to discuss the text might also help bring your own ideas into focus. Faculty members appreciate talking with students who take active steps to ensure their own success, so be sure to read the document prior to the appointment. Schedule the meeting with your instructor by sending an email that applies the best practices discussed in this textbook, and arrive on time to the session prepared with your questions. Figure 4, a multipage handout adapted from Roux et al. (2020), illustrates these pieces of advice.

Can you think of any other tips you would add to the visual?

How might the skills used to schedule and participate in a meeting with an instructor be transferred to a workplace context?

Figure 4. Tips for emailing and meeting with an instructor

Do not be afraid to discuss points of uncertainty or confusion during a meeting with an instructor. After all, your purpose is to seek clarification about a text so that you may write about it confidently in a critical review.

Understand How to Organize a Critical Review

Once you have read the text and feel confident about discussing it, you can make plans for your critical review. This type of paper generally follows an introduction, body, and conclusion structure, the same organizational configuration you have applied when writing memos and letters.

The Introduction

To establish context for readers, begin the introduction with a concise summary of the document under review; list the document’s title and author at the beginning of the summary. This summary serves as a foundation for the subsequent critical discussion of the text presented in the body section of the paper. Recall that when composing a summary, a writer uses his or her own words and sentence structures, focuses on main points, excludes details, and cites and references source material. The following summary, adapted from the Writing and Communication Centre, University of Waterloo (n.d., para. 4), demonstrates application of these summary guidelines.

In their article “British Columbia’s Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Review of the Latest ‘Grand Experiment’ in Environmental Policy,” Murray and Rivers (2015) examine the outcome of that province’s first attempt to institute a carbon tax. The main goal was to try to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Following principles favored by economists, the authors explain that the province began with a small tax and increased the rate over several years, allowing taxpayers to ease into the plan slowly. By reviewing other research studies and using a simulation model, Murray and Rivers (para. 1) find that GHG emissions decreased by 5 to 15 percent as a result of the carbon tax. This reduction was higher than expected, and the authors suggest that a carbon tax not only works because of the extra financial burden, but also because of some other social cost of consuming fossil fuels; however, the exact mechanism is not yet understood. Their study also revealed that public support for the carbon tax grew post-implementation.

Murray, B., & Rivers, N. (2015). British Colombia’s revenue-neutral carbon tax: A review of the   latest ‘grand experiment’ in environmental policy. Energy Policy, 86 , 674-683.          https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.011

Notice how compact this summary is: it communicates the central points of a nine-page journal article in one concise paragraph.

After the summary, continue the introduction by supplying a thesis statement that reveals the critical review’s purpose and your determination regarding the effectiveness of the text’s argument: this determination is the result of your analysis and evaluation of the argument. The thesis may also outline the critique’s organization; alternatively, you might decide to place the forecasting statement (route map) in a separate sentence at the end of the introduction. The following introduction, adapted from Grosz (2019, paras. 1, 2, 3), demonstrates these elements at work in a sample critique introduction.

In his 2019 Harvard Data Science Review article entitled “Artificial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet,” Michael I. Jordan makes evident that many have lost sight of the full richness of human intelligence and have neglected to separate foundational understanding from engineering. Most importantly, he points out the need to develop an “engineering discipline . . . for the data-focused and learning-focused fields” and that the systems based on their methods “should be built to work as claimed” (para. 29). A distinguished machine learning insider, Jordan speaks with authority, bringing insight to current discussions of the promise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the potential threats it raises for societal wellbeing. The article, nonetheless, misses two important pieces of the story: the point that when established, the AI and human-computer interaction fields initially competed to their detriment and the reality that humanities values and social science principles are central to the foundation of the engineering discipline he describes. I discuss these matters in turn and then indicate ways they should inform the engineering discipline Jordan envisions.

Jordan, M.I. (2019). Artificial intelligence—The revolution hasn’t happened yet. Harvard Data Science Review, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.f06c6e61

Although the jargon used in this paragraph may be unfamiliar to you, the text’s organizational structure is nevertheless clear.

Organize your body paragraphs around the themes that resulted from your evaluation of the text. In other words, rather than discussing each paragraph of the text in a chronological fashion—an approach that can be wordy and repetitious—think about the main points that emerged during your examination of the text’s argument, and center your discussion on those areas. Your aim when writing a critical review is to construct an argument about the effectiveness of the text’s argument, so begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence that makes a claim in reference to an evaluation theme. Then develop the body paragraphs by discussing examples and evidence from the text to support your points; remember to indicate the relevance of this information to your argument and incorporate it cohesively into your text. The following student example, adapted from Jensen (2014) as cited in Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020f, “Sample Essay”), demonstrates these guidelines at work in a body paragraph.

In the article “Why I Won’t Buy and iPad (and Think You Shouldn’t, Either),” Cory Doctorow (2014) expresses bias against the digital rights management (DRM) control built into the Apple iPad’s design by constructing a one-sided argument. He makes the point that Apple “uses DRM to control what can run on your devices, which means that Apple’s customers can’t take their ‘iContent’ with them to competing devices, and Apple developers can’t sell on their own terms” (para. 13). Doctorow is a software creator, so he has something personal to gain from unconstrained digital media sharing; however, not everyone can develop software. The author overlooks the iPad’s beneficial applications, which can be used by a diverse range of people, by focusing only on those who are looking to develop and sell their own software. Just because the iPad does not work for Doctorow does not mean it will not work for others.

Doctorow, C. (2010, April 2). Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either) . BoingBoing. https://boingboing.net/2010/04/02/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-thi.html

Be sure to cite and reference pieces of evidence, including those taken from the text under review, as the sample does.

The Conclusion

When writing the conclusion section of a critical review, reiterate your thesis (without repeating it word for word) and emphasize what your analysis and evaluation reveals about the text under review.

Plan Your Critical Review

A well-organized critical review requires careful planning: although close work with a text can reveal many points about its argument, you will likely only be able to discuss a selection of these in your paper given length restrictions. An outline may help you to narrow the focus of your paper and devise a logical plan for its construction. Figure 5, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020e), provides tips for outlining.

Figure 5. Guidance for constructing an outline

A concept map, also known as a mind map, can also be used to plan a critical review. Figure 6, adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab (2020b), supplies directions for constructing a concept map.

Figure 6. Instructions for creating a concept map

Whatever planning method you select, concentrate only on prominent evaluation themes in order to address those themes adequately in your paper.

Use an Appropriate Tone and Language When Writing a Critical Review

A critical review aims to reveal the positive and negative aspects of a text’s argument in order to comment upon its effectiveness; in so doing, a critical review makes its own argument. As with other types of academic and technical writing, maintain a respectful, reasonable tone when writing a critique so that you work is taken seriously. Tone is the attitude a writer conveys toward a paper’s audience and subject matter. Strive to build your argument on clear claims, rational reasons, and quality evidence—as well as coverage of counter-claims, reasons, and evidence—rather than on emotive language, exclamatory sentences, personal attacks, or indefensible assertions. The latter weaken an argument’s persuasiveness and are inappropriate in academic and technical writing.

When writing a critical review, use words that are precise, concise, and appropriately formal. The following guidelines elaborate on these points.

Negative Sentence Construction

Avoid negative sentence constructions because they can be awkward and difficult to follow. Here is an example.

• Instead of: He did not remember to complete the homework assignment.
• Write: He forgot to complete the homework assignment.

The affirmative sentence construction provides a clear and concise alternative to the awkward first version.

Word Choice (adapted from McNamee, 2019, p. 1)

When writing for a technical or academic audience, avoid unquantifiable descriptive words, such as good , bad , great , huge , big , very , extremely , incredibly , and enormously . These words are problematic because they do not define a specific degree or amount.

Sentence Structure (adapted from McNamee, 2019, p. 2)

Aim to convey the meaning of a sentence, the key information, at the beginning of the sentence. To demonstrate, look at these two examples.

• Instead of: Despite the margins of error due to human error that occurred due to improper pipette cleaning, the results showed that the pH still remained acidic.
• Write: The results showed the pH remained acidic, despite the margins of error due to improper pipette cleaning.

The first version is unclear because the beginning clause does not communicate the main purpose of the sentence. The second version communicates the focus of the sentence early on and is also more concise.

Language (adapted from Excelsior Online Writing Lab, 2020g)

Make every effort to use language that is clear and appropriately formal when writing a critical review. Here are some specific guidelines to keep in mind.

• o Instead of: I think anyone who becomes a parent should have to take parenting classes.
• o Write: Parenting classes should be mandatory for biological and adoptive parents.
• o Instead of: When you read this textbook, you will notice the content is focused on technical writing.
• o Write: Textbook readers will notice this book’s content focuses on technical writing.
• o Instead of: The study didn’t examine how age affected participants’ notetaking practices.
• o Write: The study did not examine how age affected participants’ notetaking practices.
• o Instead of: A lot of employees showed up at the staff meeting.
• o Write: Twenty-five employees attended the staff meeting.
• Avoid redundant words and phrases.
• o Instead of: The conference presentation was brief in length.
• o Write: The conference presentation was brief.

Consider the audience, purpose, context, and genre for a critique to gauge the level of formality expected in the document.

Can you think of any other tone or language tips you would add to this textbook section?

Activity A: Read and Work with a Text that Addresses Top Writing Errors

Read the handout “Top Twenty Errors in Undergraduate Writing” (Hume Center for Writing and Speaking, Stanford University, n.d.), which can be found at the following address.

https://undergrad.stanford.edu/tutoring-support/hume-center/resources/student-resources/grammar-resources-writers/top-twenty-errors-undergraduate-writing

Now review the feedback on three of your previous writing assignments. Do you detect any of the errors listed on the handout in your work? Identify three issues that recur in your assignments and handout sections/explanations that will help you address these issues.

Issue one + handout section/explanation:

Issue two + handout section/explanation:

Issue three + handout section/explanation:

Activity B: Read and Engage with a Formal Report

Watch a video entitled “Meet Emma – Your Work Colleague of the Future” (Fellowes Brands, 2019), which can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5SuzGkUPw , for an introduction to the topic of a particular formal report.

Now open William Higham’s (2019) formal report entitled “The Work Colleague of the Future: A Report on the Long-Term Health of Office Workers” at https://assets.fellowes.com/skins/fellowes/responsive/gb/en/resources/work-colleague-of-the-future/download/WCOF_Report_EU.pdf . You will be asked to write a critical review of Higham’s report for homework. To help you comprehend and connect with the ideas discussed in the report, practice preview, close, and critical reading techniques by following the steps listed. Actively engage with the text by making notes on the steps as you proceed.

• Look at the title of the text. Based on the title, what do you think the report is about?
• Look at the text’s headings and subheadings. What do these tell you about the topic of the report?
• Skim through the introduction. What do you expect the report will discuss?
• Skim though the final section of the report. What did you learn?
• What is your initial impression regarding the soundness of the report? What made you form that impression?
• What do you know about Higham or Fellowes, the organization that commissioned the report? Google them now on your computer.
• Does what you discovered about them change your impression regarding the soundness of the report? Why or why not?
• On first glance, does the document follow the conventions for formal reports outlined in the “Reading Actively” chapter of this textbook?
• If so, how? If not, how does it deviate from the conventions, what effect does the deviation have on you as a reader, and what might be the reason for the deviation?
• After reading, try to define the unknown terms you identified.
• After reading, try to answer your questions. You may need to review the essential details of the text again to do this.
• Determine the report’s purpose or thesis.
• Determine the report’s target audience.
• Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Findings.”
• Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Danger Zones.”
• Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Our Offices.”
• Identify the main idea of the section entitled “Physical Impact.”
• Concentrate on the report’s purpose/thesis and main ideas or themes when summarizing, and omit detail
• Put the report away when summarizing it to avoid copying its language and sentence structures
• Identify how the author contextualizes the report for readers by looking for associations between its content and readers’ experiences.
• Are the author’s points logical? Do they make sense?
• Is each of the author’s viewpoints (claims) supported with evidence?
• Is the evidence comprehensible?
• Does the evidence sufficiently support the claim?
• Is the evidence relevant to the claim?
• Is the evidence logically tied to the claim?
• Given the purpose of the piece and its audience, is the evidence from suitable sources?
• Is the evidence research-based ( empirical ), factual, or grounded in hearsay or casual observation ( anecdotal ), or does the author rely heavily on a reader’s emotional reactions to communicate the force of his viewpoints?
• Is the evidence credible?
• Can you easily associate citations with their references and sources?
• Identify the connection of reasons to viewpoints. The report author may state reasons outright—look for uses of seeing as , because , since , given that , and the like—or imply them.
• Does the author address counter-claims?
• Does the author address counter-reasons?
• Does the author address counter-evidence?
• Does the author respond reasonably to other viewpoints or simply dismiss them?
• What impression does the design give you?
• How does the design contribute (or not) to your understanding of the report?
• Does your thesis articulate the theme of your paper and express your viewpoint?
• Is your thesis an arguable statement rather than a statement of fact?
• Can the argument conveyed in your thesis be supported with claims, reasons, and evidence?

Homework: Compose a Critical Review Essay

Draw upon what you did in Activity B to write an essay that critiques “The Work Colleague of the Future: A Report on the Long-Term Health of Office Workers” (Higham, 2019). This assignment asks you to closely examine the argument presented in the formal report (analyze it) and explain to readers how effective the argument is (evaluate it). Remember that a critical review makes an argument: you will need to support your claims about the report with reasons and evidence and cite and reference all outside sources of information used. Follow the guidelines presented in this chapter when writing your paper; in addition, consult the “Writing Essays” chapter of this textbook for essay formatting guidance and the “Writing to Persuade” chapter for argumentation information. Lastly, use the points you identified in activity A to revise your work.

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020a). Evaluating an author’s intent . License: CC-BY 4.0 . https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/EvaluatingAuthorsIntent2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020b). How to make a concept map . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HowToMakeConceptMap2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020c). How to preview a text . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/Previewing2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020d). How to use questioning to improve reading comprehension . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/Questioning2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020e). Outlining . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HowToMakeAnOutline2019.pdf

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020f). Sample rhetorical analysis . License: CC-BY 4.0 https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/argument-analysis/argument-analysis-sample-rhetorical-analysis/

Excelsior Online Writing Lab. (2020g). Tips on academic voice . License: CC-BY 4.0 .  https://owl.excelsior.edu/writing-process/finding-your-voice/finding-your-voice-tips-on-academic-voice/

Fellowes Brands. (2019, October 23). Meet Emma – your work colleague of the future [Video].  YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL5SuzGkUPw

Grosz, B.J. (2019). The AI revolution needs expertise in people, publics and societies. Harvard  Data Science Review, 1 (1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.97b95546

Higham, W. (2019). The work colleague of the future: A report on the long-term health of office workers. Fellowes . https://assets.fellowes.com/skins/fellowes/responsive/gb/en/resources/work-colleague-of-the-future/download/WCOF_Report_EU.pdf

Hume Center for Writing and Speaking, Stanford University. (n.d.). Top twenty errors in undergraduate writing . https://undergrad.stanford.edu/tutoring-support/hume-center/resources/student-resources/grammar-resources-writers/top-twenty-errors-undergraduate-writing

McLaughlin Library, University of Guelph. (n.d.). We need to talk: Tips for participating in class discussions . License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 .  https://learningcommons.lib.uoguelph.ca/item/we-need-talk-tips-participating-class-discussions

McNamee, K. (2019). Tone. Colorado School of Mines Writing Center . License: CC-BY-NC 4.0 .  https://www.mines.edu/otcc/wp-content/uploads/sites/303/2019/12/otcctonelesson.pdf

Roux, S., Ravaei, K., & Harper, T. (2020).  Quick tips for contacting instructors over email, quick tips for meeting instructors in-person . WI+RE: Writing Instruction + Research Education. License: CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 .  https://uclalibrary.github.io/research-tips/assets/handouts/contacting-faculty-combined.pdf

Student Academic Success Services, Queen’s University. (2018). Writing a critical review . License: CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 .  https://sass.queensu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Critical-Review.pdf

Writing and Communication Centre, University of Waterloo. (n.d.). Citing a source more than once . https://uwaterloo.ca/writing-and-communication-centre/citing-source-more-once

Mindful Technical Writing Copyright © 2020 by Dawn Atkinson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

IOE Writing Centre

• Writing a Critical Review

Writing a Critique

A critique (or critical review) is not to be mistaken for a literature review. A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail.  In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review). In contrast, a 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type of text, such as a chapter of your dissertation.

Most importantly: Read your article / book as many times as possible, as this will make the critical review much easier.

1. Read and take notes 2. Organising your writing 3. Summary 4. Evaluation 5. Linguistic features of a critical review 6. Summary language 7. Evaluation language 8. Conclusion language 9. Example extracts from a critical review 10. Further resources

Read and Take Notes

To improve your reading confidence and efficiency, visit our pages on reading.

Further reading: Read Confidently

After you are familiar with the text, make notes on some of the following questions. Choose the questions which seem suitable:

• What kind of article is it (for example does it present data or does it present purely theoretical arguments)?
• What is the main area under discussion?
• What are the main findings?
• What are the stated limitations?
• Where does the author's data and evidence come from? Are they appropriate / sufficient?
• What are the main issues raised by the author?
• What questions are raised?
• How well are these questions addressed?
• What are the major points/interpretations made by the author in terms of the issues raised?
• Is the text balanced? Is it fair / biased?
• Does the author contradict herself?
• How does all this relate to other literature on this topic?
• How does all this relate to your own experience, ideas and views?
• What else has this author written? Do these build / complement this text?
• (Optional) Has anyone else reviewed this article? What did they say? Do I agree with them?

^ Back to top

Organising your writing

You first need to summarise the text that you have read. One reason to summarise the text is that the reader may not have read the text. In your summary, you will

• focus on points within the article that you think are interesting
• summarise the author(s) main ideas or argument
• explain how these ideas / argument have been constructed. (For example, is the author basing her arguments on data that they have collected? Are the main ideas / argument purely theoretical?)

In your summary you might answer the following questions:     Why is this topic important?     Where can this text be located? For example, does it address policy studies?     What other prominent authors also write about this?

Evaluation is the most important part in a critical review.

Use the literature to support your views. You may also use your knowledge of conducting research, and your own experience. Evaluation can be explicit or implicit.

Explicit evaluation

Explicit evaluation involves stating directly (explicitly) how you intend to evaluate the text. e.g. "I will review this article by focusing on the following questions. First, I will examine the extent to which the authors contribute to current thought on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) pedagogy. After that, I will analyse whether the authors' propositions are feasible within overseas SLA classrooms."

Implicit evaluation

Implicit evaluation is less direct. The following section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review contains language that evaluates the text. A difficult part of evaluation of a published text (and a professional author) is how to do this as a student. There is nothing wrong with making your position as a student explicit and incorporating it into your evaluation. Examples of how you might do this can be found in the section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review. You need to remember to locate and analyse the author's argument when you are writing your critical review. For example, you need to locate the authors' view of classroom pedagogy as presented in the book / article and not present a critique of views of classroom pedagogy in general.

Linguistic features of a critical review

The following examples come from published critical reviews. Some of them have been adapted for student use.

Summary language

•     This article / book is divided into two / three parts. First...
•     While the title might suggest...
•     The tone appears to be...
•     Title is the first / second volume in the series Title, edited by...The books / articles in this series address...
•     The second / third claim is based on...
•     The author challenges the notion that...
•     The author tries to find a more middle ground / make more modest claims...
•     The article / book begins with a short historical overview of...
•     Numerous authors have recently suggested that...(see Author, Year; Author, Year). Author would also be once such author. With his / her argument that...
•     To refer to title as a...is not to say that it is...
•     This book / article is aimed at... This intended readership...
•     The author's book / article examines the...To do this, the author first...
•     The author develops / suggests a theoretical / pedagogical model to…
•     This book / article positions itself firmly within the field of...
•     The author in a series of subtle arguments, indicates that he / she...
•     The argument is therefore...
•     The author asks "..."
•     With a purely critical / postmodern take on...
•     Topic, as the author points out, can be viewed as...
•     In this recent contribution to the field of...this British author...
•     As a leading author in the field of...
•     This book / article nicely contributes to the field of...and complements other work by this author...
•     The second / third part of...provides / questions / asks the reader...
•     Title is intended to encourage students / researchers to...
•     The approach taken by the author provides the opportunity to examine...in a qualitative / quantitative research framework that nicely complements...
•     The author notes / claims that state support / a focus on pedagogy / the adoption of...remains vital if...
•     According to Author (Year) teaching towards examinations is not as effective as it is in other areas of the curriculum. This is because, as Author (Year) claims that examinations have undue status within the curriculum.
•     According to Author (Year)…is not as effective in some areas of the curriculum / syllabus as others. Therefore the author believes that this is a reason for some school's…

Evaluation language

•     This argument is not entirely convincing, as...furthermore it commodifies / rationalises the...
•     Over the last five / ten years the view of...has increasingly been viewed as 'complicated' (see Author, Year; Author, Year).
•     However, through trying to integrate...with...the author...
•     There are difficulties with such a position.
•     Inevitably, several crucial questions are left unanswered / glossed over by this insightful / timely / interesting / stimulating book / article. Why should...
•     It might have been more relevant for the author to have written this book / article as...
•     This article / book is not without disappointment from those who would view...as...
•     This chosen framework enlightens / clouds...
•     This analysis intends to be...but falls a little short as...
•     The authors rightly conclude that if...
•     A detailed, well-written and rigorous account of...
•     As a Korean student I feel that this article / book very clearly illustrates...
•     The beginning of...provides an informative overview into...
•     The tables / figures do little to help / greatly help the reader...
•     The reaction by scholars who take a...approach might not be so favourable (e.g. Author, Year).
•     This explanation has a few weaknesses that other researchers have pointed out (see Author, Year; Author, Year). The first is...
•     On the other hand, the author wisely suggests / proposes that...By combining these two dimensions...
•     The author's brief introduction to...may leave the intended reader confused as it fails to properly...
•     Despite my inability to...I was greatly interested in...
•     Even where this reader / I disagree(s), the author's effort to...
•     The author thus combines...with...to argue...which seems quite improbable for a number of reasons. First...
•     Perhaps this aversion to...would explain the author's reluctance to...
•     As a second language student from ...I find it slightly ironic that such an anglo-centric view is...
•     The reader is rewarded with...
•     Less convincing is the broad-sweeping generalisation that...
•     There is no denying the author's subject knowledge nor his / her...
•     The author's prose is dense and littered with unnecessary jargon...
•     The author's critique of...might seem harsh but is well supported within the literature (see Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year). Aligning herself with the author, Author (Year) states that...
•     As it stands, the central focus of Title is well / poorly supported by its empirical findings...
•     Given the hesitation to generalise to...the limitation of...does not seem problematic...
•     For instance, the term...is never properly defined and the reader left to guess as to whether...
•     Furthermore, to label...as...inadvertently misguides...
•     In addition, this research proves to be timely / especially significant to... as recent government policy / proposals has / have been enacted to...
•     On this well researched / documented basis the author emphasises / proposes that...
•     Nonetheless, other research / scholarship / data tend to counter / contradict this possible trend / assumption...(see Author, Year; Author, Year).
•     Without entering into detail of the..., it should be stated that Title should be read by...others will see little value in...
•     As experimental conditions were not used in the study the word 'significant' misleads the reader.
•     The article / book becomes repetitious in its assertion that...
•     The thread of the author's argument becomes lost in an overuse of empirical data...
•     Almost every argument presented in the final section is largely derivative, providing little to say about...
•     She / he does not seem to take into consideration; however, that there are fundamental differences in the conditions of…
•     As Author (Year) points out, however, it seems to be necessary to look at…
•     This suggest that having low…does not necessarily indicate that…is ineffective.
•     Therefore, the suggestion made by Author (Year)…is difficult to support.
•     When considering all the data presented…it is not clear that the low scores of some students, indeed, reflects…

Conclusion language

•     Overall this article / book is an analytical look at...which within the field of...is often overlooked.
•     Despite its problems, Title offers valuable theoretical insights / interesting examples / a contribution to pedagogy and a starting point for students / researchers of...with an interest in...
•     This detailed and rigorously argued...
•     This first / second volume / book / article by...with an interest in...is highly informative...

Example extracts from a critical review

Writing critically.

If you have been told your writing is not critical enough, it probably means that your writing treats the knowledge claims as if they are true, well supported, and applicable in the context you are writing about. This may not always be the case.

In these two examples, the extracts refer to the same section of text. In each example, the section that refers to a source has been highlighted in bold. The note below the example then explains how the writer has used the source material.    

There is a strong positive effect on students, both educationally and emotionally, when the instructors try to learn to say students' names without making pronunciation errors (Kiang, 2004).

Use of source material in example a: 

This is a simple paraphrase with no critical comment. It looks like the writer agrees with Kiang. (This is not a good example for critical writing, as the writer has not made any critical comment).        

Kiang (2004) gives various examples to support his claim that "the positive emotional and educational impact on students is clear" (p.210) when instructors try to pronounce students' names in the correct way. He quotes one student, Nguyet, as saying that he "felt surprised and happy" (p.211) when the tutor said his name clearly . The emotional effect claimed by Kiang is illustrated in quotes such as these, although the educational impact is supported more indirectly through the chapter. Overall, he provides more examples of students being negatively affected by incorrect pronunciation, and it is difficult to find examples within the text of a positive educational impact as such.

Use of source material in example b: 

The writer describes Kiang's (2004) claim and the examples which he uses to try to support it. The writer then comments that the examples do not seem balanced and may not be enough to support the claims fully. This is a better example of writing which expresses criticality.

^Back to top

Further resources

You may also be interested in our page on criticality, which covers criticality in general, and includes more critical reading questions.

Further reading: Read and Write Critically

We recommend that you do not search for other university guidelines on critical reviews. This is because the expectations may be different at other institutions. Ask your tutor for more guidance or examples if you have further questions.

IOE Writing Centre Online

Self-access resources from the Academic Writing Centre at the UCL Institute of Education.

Anonymous Suggestions Box

Information for Staff

Academic Writing Centre

Academic Writing Centre, UCL Institute of Education [email protected] Twitter:   @AWC_IOE Skype:   awc.ioe

• Jump to menu
• Student Home
• Accept your offer
• How to enrol
• Student ID card
• Set up your IT
• Orientation Week
• Fees & payment
• Academic calendar
• Special consideration
• Transcripts
• The Nucleus: Student Hub
• Referencing
• Essay writing
• Learning abroad & exchange
• Professional development & UNSW Advantage
• Employability
• Financial assistance
• International students
• Equitable learning
• Postgraduate research
• Health Service
• Events & activities
• Emergencies
• Volunteering
• Clubs and societies
• Accommodation
• Health services
• Sport and gym
• Arc student organisation
• Security on campus
• Maps of campus
• Careers portal
• Change password

Writing a Critical Review

The advice below is a general guide only. We strongly recommend that you also follow your assignment instructions and seek clarification from your lecturer/tutor if needed.

Purpose of a critical review

The critical review is a writing task that asks you to summarise and evaluate a text. The critical review can be of a book, a chapter, or a journal article. Writing the critical review usually requires you to read the selected text in detail and to read other related texts so you can present a fair and reasonable evaluation of the selected text. 

What is meant by critical?

At university, to be critical does not mean to criticise in a negative manner. Rather, it requires you to question the information and opinions in a text and present your evaluation or judgement of the text. To do this well, you should attempt to understand the topic from different perspectives (i.e. read related texts), and in relation to the theories, approaches and frameworks in your course.

What is meant by evaluation or judgement?

This is where you decide the strengths and weaknesses of a text. This is usually based on specific criteria. Evaluating requires an understanding of not just the content of the text, but also an understanding of a text’s purpose, the intended audience, and why it is structured the way it is.

What is meant by analysis?

Analysis requires separating the content and concepts of a text into their main components and then understanding how these interrelate, connect and possibly influence each other.

  Next: Structure of a critical review

Essay and assignment writing guide.

• Essay writing basics
• Essay and assignment planning
• Answering assignment questions
• Editing checklist
• Structure of a critical review
• General criteria for evaluating
• Sample extracts
• Annotated bibliography
• Reflective writing
• ^ More support

Scholarly Resources 4 Students | scite.ai 21 May 2024

Discover your Library: Main Library 21 May 2024

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Dr. Janis Melvold

Departments

• Comparative Media Studies/Writing

As Taught In

• Academic Writing
• Technical Writing

Learning Resource Types

Science writing and new media: explorations in communicating about science & technology, assignment 1: a critical review.

Due: Session 5

Length: ~1250 words

For this assignment you will write a critical review of an exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science .

The purpose and target audience of your review: Who are you writing for and why?

Here’s the scenario:

Imagine there’s a journal devoted to the topic of communicating science—let’s even imagine that the journal has that very title, Communicating Science . The journal caters to a broad audience of scientists, science teachers, students interested in STEM fields, and science writers. The editors of this journal are planning a special issue on the topic of communicating science through museum exhibits. You have been invited, as an MIT student, to contribute to this issue by submitting a review of a Boston Museum of Science exhibit. You may choose to write about any exhibit you want.

The purpose of the review is to provide an analysis and assessment of this exhibit, showing how it succeeds or falls short in engaging and conveying scientific ideas and information to its target audience.

Format and Content of the Review

The review should be written in the form of an essay.

It should include:

• A brief overview of the Boston Museum of Science and your views about the role of science museums
• A more detailed description of the exhibit you’re focusing on (e.g., its topic, content, design, aims, target audience(s))
• An analysis of the exhibit’s strengths and weaknesses
• An assessment of the overall success of the exhibit in achieving what you see as the designers’ intent

Organizing the Review

The review should have a discernible introduction (providing context and a framework for critique); body (consisting of your description and analysis of the exhibit); and a summary/conclusion (underscoring the main idea of your review).

You may use section headings to highlight key points. The paper should be either 1.5 or double-spaced, using a standard 12 pt. font and standard margins. It should also include a descriptive title.

Evaluating an Exhibit: What Should You Consider?

Consider the exhibit in light of the ideas discussed in the Semper article, “ Science Museums as Environments for Learning ,” as well as your own ideas about science museums.

Here are some questions to consider:

• What is the topic of the exhibit and what is its basic purpose?
• Is this an appropriate topic for a science museum?
• Who is its target audience (or audiences)? How can you tell?
• Are the scope and depth of the exhibit’s content appropriate for the target audience(s)?
• What forms of media are used to present information? Are they effective? Why or why not?
• How is the exhibit organized (e.g., historically, topically, thematically)? Does the method of organization seem logical and clear?
• What do you notice about people visiting the exhibit and their responses to it?
• Does the exhibit actively engage the audience? If so, in what ways? If not, why?
• Is the exhibit aesthetically appealing?
• Are there gaps in the coverage of the topic?
• Is the content accurate and up to date?
• Are aspects of the exhibit confusing?
• Do you have ideas about how the exhibit could be improved?

Take notes! You can even take pictures!

Using and Citing Source Material

If you draw on any idea, concepts, or facts from the Semper article, be sure to cite them and include a complete bibliographic reference to the article at the end. You are not expected to do additional research or consult other sources of information for this paper.

Suggestions for the Process of Writing

Thinking and planning are important (and often underappreciated) aspects of the writing process. You’re likely to find that the actual writing will be easier if you devote plenty of time to thinking about and sketching out your ideas and key points.

Using your recollections and notes, list the key points that you want to include in your analysis. Identify a central unifying theme for your review . Then you’ll be ready to sketch out the organization of each section and to see how the sections fit together into a coherent critical review. (The structure might change as you’re drafting the piece.)

And remember that you will have the opportunity to revise the essay after receiving feedback on the first version.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

• Case Studies
• Free Coaching Session

A Critical Review: How to Do it Step by Step

Last Updated:  

April 24, 2023

You have been asked to write a critical review of a novel, a painting, a movie, a play, a piece of music... and you don't know where to start? It's not the same as asking "how to write my papers or an academic essay" because a review has a different structure and emphases to pay attention to. But don't panic! Read this post carefully, and you'll learn how to organise and write it step by step. You can also read various sample critiques by other writers to prepare for them better.

Key Takeaways section on how to write a Critical Review

• Understand the purpose : A critical review should summarise and evaluate the work, providing well-argued and justified opinions.
• No standard length : Critical reviews can range from 500 to 800 words depending on the complexity of the work being analysed.
• Five-part structure : Include a title, introduction, summary, critical commentary, and conclusion in your review.
• Create a compelling title : A title should summarise your general opinion; consider writing it after completing the review to capture the essence of your conclusions.
• Offer well-supported evaluations : Your critical commentary should be extensive and supported by arguments, not just simple statements of liking or disliking the work.
• Brief conclusions : Summarise your critical commentary and overall thoughts on the work in a concise manner.
• Prepare before writing : Approach the work without prejudice, take notes, make summaries, and gather relevant information to ensure a successful critical review.

What to take into account when writing a critical review?

The first thing to remember is that it is an expository-argumentative text. Therefore, your critical review must fulfil two objectives:

Summarise the work , i.e., provide an overall view by synthesising its most important aspects.

Evaluate the work , that is, give a personal value judgement about it. Your opinion must be well-argued and justified.

And how long should this text be, you may be wondering. The truth is that there is no standard length. That is, it depends on how long and complex the object of your analysis is (reviewing a short film is not the same as reviewing a three-hour movie). A reasonable measure would be between 500 words minimum and 800 words maximum. But remember - a text must say something, give information, so if your text is short, but you don't think it is necessary to add anything more, don't continue writing! Go to the point and remember: empty text only serves to confuse and divert attention from the main topic.

The structure of a critical review

As we have seen, your review should summarise the work you are analysing and give your opinion about it. To fulfil both objectives, you will have to follow this five-part structure:

• ‍ Title of the review: it should be a title that synthesises your general opinion. For example, if you are reviewing the novel Love in the Time of Cholera, you liked it and what moved you most is how the author narrates a love that resists decades and decades - your title could be something like this: 'Love in the Time of Cholera: the moving tale of a patient love that can do anything. A trick to write the perfect title is to wait until the end of the review since the essence of the title is usually in the conclusions. ‍
• Introduction: this section should be very brief, and in it you will have to introduce the author and the work. In the case of Love in the Time of Cholera, we would briefly talk about Gabriel García Márquez's career and tell that the book is about the love between Florentino, Fermina and Juvenal throughout the years. ‍
• Summary : This third part is broader than the presentation, and it is here where you should go deeper into the theme of the work. It is about choosing those key moments or features that shape the play. Returning to the example of Love in the Time of Cholera, some moments that should be in the expository summary would be the love affair between Florentino and Fermina, her marriage to Juvenal, the death of the doctor, and the reunion with Florentino, since they mark turning points in the story. ‍
• Critical commentary: this point should be the most extensive of all the critical reviews since you must give your opinion about the work, but be careful! it is not enough to say 'I liked it' or 'I didn't like it', but your evaluation must have a basis and be supported by arguments. To do this, you will have to choose the points of the work that most caught your attention and comment on them, saying if you agree with the way it has been presented. And if the work has seemed novel or not, if you think it has maintained coherence from beginning to end, if the characters seem relevant to you, if you think another approach would have been more effective… and why. ‍
• Conclusions: this part should be very brief, and in it you have to summarise your critical commentary and say what you thought of the work in general and how it made you feel.

How to prepare a critical review

To make sure that the writing of your review is perfect, you will have to start preparing it before you start writing while you are enjoying the book.

Approach the works without prejudice! If, for example, you go to a concert thinking you won't like it, you will probably be unfairly negative in your review.

Take notes as you read, watch, listen and observe the work to recover them in your review.

In the case of long works, make summaries of their parts: it will be easier and faster to synthesise the whole.

Make sure you have a good understanding of the work to be able to judge it correctly. To do this, consult information and bibliography about it.

Now that you know how to write it, your next critical review will be a success!

Related Articles:

Client Success!! Watch THIS >>>

Client Success - Case Study

© 2016 - 2024 Robin Waite. All rights reserved.

Write a Critical Review

Introduction, how can i improve my critical review, ask us: chat, email, visit or call.

Video: How to Integrate Critical Voice into Your Literature Review

Video: Note-taking and Writing Tips to Avoid Plagiarism

More help: Writing

• Book Writing Appointments Get help on your writing assignments.
• To introduce the source, its main ideas, key details, and its place within the field
• To present your assessment of the quality of the source

In general, the introduction of your critical review should include

• Author(s) name
• Title of the source 
• What is the author's central purpose?
• What methods or theoretical frameworks were used to accomplish this purpose?
• What topic areas, chapters, sections, or key points did the author use to structure the source?
• What were the results or findings of the study?
• How were the results or findings interpreted? How were they related to the original problem (author's view of evidence rather than objective findings)?
• Who conducted the research? What were/are their interests?
• Why did they do this research?
• Was this research pertinent only within the author’s field, or did it have broader (even global) relevance?
• On what prior research was this source-based? What gap is the author attempting to address?
• How important was the research question posed by the researcher?
• Your overall opinion of the quality of the source. Think of this like a thesis or main argument.
• Present your evaluation of the source, providing evidence from the text (or other sources) to support your assessment.

In general, the body of your critical review should include

• Is the material organized logically and with appropriate headings?
• Are there stylistic problems in logical, clarity or language?
• Were the author(s) able to answer the question (test the hypothesis) raised
• What was the objective of the study?
• Does all the information lead coherently to the purpose of the study?
• Are the methods valid for studying the problem or gap?
• Could the study be duplicated from the information provided?
• Is the experimental design logical and reliable?
• How are the data organized? Is it logical and interpretable?
• Do the results reveal what the researcher intended?
• Do the authors present a logical interpretation of the results?
• Have the limitations of the research been addressed?
• Does the study consider other key studies in the field or other research possibilities or directions?
• How was the significance of the work described?
• Follow the structure of the journal article (e.g. Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) - highlighting the strengths and weaknesses in each section
• Present the weaknesses of the article, and then the strengths of the article (or vice versa).
• Group your ideas according to different research themes presented in the source
• Group the strengths and weaknesses of the article into the following areas: originality, reliability, validity, relevance, and presentation

Purpose: 

• To summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the article as a whole
• To assert the article’s practical and theoretical significance

In general, the conclusion of your critical review should include

• A restatement of your overall opinion
• A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of the research that support your overall opinion of the source
• Did the research reported in this source result in the formation of new questions, theories or hypotheses by the authors or other researchers?
• Have other researchers subsequently supported or refuted the observations or interpretations of these authors?
• Did the research provide new factual information, a new understanding of a phenomenon in the field, a new research technique?
• Did the research produce any practical applications? 
• What are the social, political, technological, or medical implications of this research?
• How do you evaluate the significance of the research? 
• Find out what style guide you are required to follow (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago) and follow the guidelines to create a reference list (may be called a bibliography or works cited).
• Be sure to include citations in the text when you refer to the source itself or external sources. 
• Check out our Cite Your Sources Guide for more information. 
• Read assignment instructions carefully and refer to them throughout the writing process.
• Make an outline of your main sections before you write.
• If your professor does not assign a topic or source, you must choose one yourself. Select a source that interests you and is written clearly so you can understand it.
• << Previous: Start Here
• Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 1:53 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uoguelph.ca/CriticalReview

Suggest an edit to this guide

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Search type

University Wide

Faculty / School Portals

Critical Review

A critical review is a piece of writing that takes an evaluative stance of a piece (e.g., a book, an essay, a movie, a painting, etc.). Critical reviews include both a summary and analysis. Don’t be fooled by the word “critical”—it doesn’t mean that your analysis focuses only on what you feel is wrong. Being critical involves an evaluation of both strengths and weaknesses. You get to decide what’s good, what’s bad, and why.

PURPOSE. The purpose of a critical review is to evaluate a work and, in so doing, to increase your reader’s understanding of it. Critical reviews are subjective because they are written from your point of view, supported by evidence.

NOTE. There are general principles of critical reviews, but there’s more than one way to write one and the specific elements depend on your discipline. When in doubt, or if something conflicts, check with your professor or TA.

Plan your assignment now:

Add your assignment plan to your calendar or download a PDF copy:

Understand your assignment

This should take about 1 % of your time

What are you being asked to do? Think about

• the requirements (e.g., stick to the primary source or reference external sources),
• the amount of integration between the summary and analysis,
• the grading criteria, and so on.

If you still have questions after reading through the assignment write-up and the syllabus, ask your professor or TA.

Preview the piece

This should take about 2 % of your time

Get a general sense of the piece and the context in which it was written or created (e.g., where and when it was made, what you know about the author/director/artist, how it is organized or presented, the goal or subject, what it is related to, etc.).

Having an overview of the piece will help you make connections when you read it more carefully (see Step 4).

Develop evaluation criteria

This should take about 7 % of your time

Develop the criteria on which you will base your analysis . The criteria you select will depend on your discipline (i.e., sociology, business, literature, film); the number of criteria will depend on the length of your review.

If you need a starting place, here are some general criteria for evaluating texts . For each criterion, brainstorm some possible questions to help focus your analysis. For example,

Criteria: Significance and contribution to the field

• What is the author’s aim and to what extent has it been achieved?
• What does this text add to our body of knowledge?
• What is missing or unstated?

Critical reviews are improved when you also have a central purpose or thesis to contain the evaluation criteria.

Carefully read/watch

This should take about 20 % of your time

To write a critical review it is essential that you both understand the piece and challenge it.

Read, watch, or examine the piece carefully. Think about what the piece means as well as what you think and feel about it. Ask questions, make comments. Take extensive notes . That is, do a close reading of the piece (even if it’s not a text).

Here are some examples of questions to ask yourself if you are conducting a critical review of a book or a journal article, as well as some more general critical reading questions .

Draft analysis

This should take about 15 % of your time

Start by organizing your notes . Categorize themes and make connections between ideas. Consider using a mind map or another visual organizer to help.

All aspects of the piece ( structure, methodology, reasons and evidence, conclusions, logic ) should be considered.

Consult related text and additional sources if necessary. Not all critical reviews require you to go beyond the primary text; if you’re not sure, check with your professor or TA.

Organize the review

This should take about 8 % of your time

Develop an outline or plan the organization of your review . Try to avoid presenting your points in a laundry-list style ; your goal is to synthesize the information as much as possible.

Use your evaluation criteria to inform the presentation of your ideas. Don’t forget to provide specific examples from the work for each of your points.

Here are some guiding questions to help you write your critical review and some specific recommendations for the structure of a critical review .

Write a first draft

Don’t worry about making your first draft perfect—just get words on the page! Remember, a critical review requires

• a summary (the basic features, including the work’s central point, areas of interest or importance, supporting arguments, and context). Keep it brief—much shorter than your analysis!
• an analysis (your assessment of the piece; includes both points of agreement and disagreement or strengths and weaknesses ).

Stuck? See this list of summary, evaluation, and conclusion language for writing prompts.

If you’re having trouble writing, explore some of the reasons why that might be , or try some of the strategies listed here (e.g., free writing, goal setting, positive reinforcement).

Revise, Edit, Proofread

It is a common mistake to rush this crucial part of the writing process. When you revise , you’ll focus on higher-order concerns like purpose, audience, source integration, organization, and paragraph structure. When editing and proofreading , you will narrow your focus to grammar, spelling, and word choice.

To help you get perspective on your work, take some time between writing and revising (e.g., have lunch, take a walk, or wait until the next day).

Reverse outline

This should take about 5 % of your time

Start the revision process by constructing a reverse outline to make sense of what you’ve written.

Now review the expectations of the assignment. Did you do what you set out to do? Does what you’ve written match what your professor asked for? Can you tweak something to better align it with the criteria set out in the assignment description?

Revise / write a second draft

Revision is the time to focus on the big picture of your assignment, for example, the balance between summary and analysis, how effectively you synthesized the information across your review, your use of the evaluation criteria, the logic flow and readability of the paper, etc.

Papers usually require multiple revisions . Think of it as happening in stages: to focus the task and make it more useful, pick a specific goal each time you revise (e.g., “This time, I’m only paying attention to content—next time I’ll check the structure”).

If you plan to get feedback from others, always revise your own paper first, at least once.

Once you’ve finished revising, you can narrow your focus to your paper’s sentence structure , word choice , and grammar. You’re aiming to improve style and coherence, reduce awkward phrasing, ensure transitions are clear, etc.

Here are some of the most common errors in style, grammar, and punctuation .

Finalize your critical review

Time to proofread! This is your last chance to find those typos that always turn up right after you hand in your paper.

Sometimes it helps to proofread your paper backwards (e.g., sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph); you’re more likely to catch typos by focusing on form, not content.

Congratulations—you did it!

If possible, take a moment to reflect. How did it go? Think about what went well, what didn’t, and how you might like to do it the next time you are asked to write a critical review.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

SAMPLE CRITICAL REVIEW

Related Papers

Aleksandra Matkovic

Abid Momand

COMMUNICATION As per the rapid development of technology, everything has changed their style and shape. However, some changes seem very positive but on the other side, it affects many valuable and intimacy-booster factors negatively. Keeping relationship alive with people through electronic means is not as much effective as the real face to face interaction is, because face to face communication will enable you to get more as compare to being engaged in wireless communication. Thus, the upcoming discussion will reveal all the shortcomings of technologies that affect communication pessimistically. It's well-known that communication plays a vital role in human being society because maintaining the relationship with family members, peers, relatives, and with all those who are close to us and touches our lives in one way or another is indispensable. Simply if we observe people in our community nearly half of them have access to some sort of technological means such as Smartphone, computers, tablets, iPods, and much more types of devices to use it for stable contacts instead of visiting and communicating closely and physically. According to Larry Rosen, virtual communication is not commendable like real world interactions. To see the enrichment and ubiquity of technological devices we are obliged to interact more with virtual friends than real-world people. As addiction, communication through electronic means takes more time than real-world communication even we know that it keep us in distance while not perceiving each other closely and intimately, despite of this, still publics; especially younger generations are using technological sources for communication and messages. And if we keep such a way of communication constant it will not let us interact personally. One study, conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found people ages 8 to 18 spent more time on media than on any other activity – at an average of 7.5 hours a day (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010). It would have been a very good thing that people had considered physically existed communication essential and important. If they were aware that how much the real world communication is useful that may not have been engaged as much in non-natural ways of communication as they currently are. In 2010, a study proved that as internet use increased, time spent with family and friends decreased while 39% of Americans spend more time socializing online than face-to-face (Brown 2013). We may think as we are social by using electronic means for keeping relationship but according to Sherry Turkle psychologist: not engaging in real world communication is just a sip of communication because we cannot get comprehensive results from the virtual exchange of information.

Social Change Review

Ali S H E H Z A D Zaidi

Wemi Ibidun

Technology has been a major part of our daily lives. We see the impact of technology in our homes, schools, businesses and relationships. This research work aimed at exploring the effect of mobile technology on human relation. An unstructured interview was performed and the results showed that mobile technology although has brought a lot of relief in terms of communication and day to day activities, but at the same time reduced physical interactions, meetups with friends and family and decreased physical activities. In conclusion, with the high rate of daily usage of this technology, people in the nearest future may not value physical relationships and it may continue to reduce both daily physical activities and face to face interactions.

Tim Strahlendorf

Thomas (Tad) A Dunne

Covers why we so easily misuse technology and the cultural and religious dimensions of our human condition to identify exactly what makes life "better." 97 pp.

Ozlem Cakir , Irshad Bloch

Anna Griffiths

This paper gives particular attention to the work of MIT Professor Sherry Turkle in order to illustrate the central arguments that 1) modern technology such as smart phones, social media and other media applications are changing our perceptions of each other through the presentation of “positive” social images, 2) These social ideals are changing the nature of our human interactions from substantial to convenient, and 3) that this lack of ability to have substantive human connection coupled with media violence is creating further feelings of individual isolation, which in turn is leading to a need for heightened sensationalism or an “extreme” mentality. I will attempt to synthesize all of this information in order to illustrate my belief that while modern technology can have positive effects on our daily lives, it is ultimately important for us to realize the psychological and potentially physical harm that we could be doing to each other and to ourselves by using it as a replacement for substantive human connection too often. Further, I posit that real, human interaction is the only way that we can understand the realities of life.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

Katherine Hertlein

The advances in technology alter the ways we interact with each other. For some, the use of technology can facilitate a relationship; for others, technology can complicate aspects of a relationship. The purpose of this research synthesis is to summarize current research exploring the ways in which technology impacts relationships negatively. Eight studies were reviewed across the following areas: preoperational definitions, sample, methodology, control of extraneous variables, causal influence, generalizability, validity of statistical findings, and conclusions. Implications for authors, researchers, and therapists working with couples and families struggling with technology issues are discussed.

Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Research in Social Sciences and Humanities Universitas Indonesia Conference (APRISH 2019)

Prof. Billy Sarwono

RELATED PAPERS

IRJET Journal

Frontiers in genetics

Byron Jones

Journal of thoracic disease

Kiki Theodorou

Revista Paranaense de Educação matemática

Vivilí Gomes

V. Pechenov

European Public &amp; Social Innovation Review

Adina Dumitru

Journal of Environmental Monitoring

shaikh yasmeen

Brazilian Journal of Health Review

Silvia Cristina De Vargas

MARIA XIMENES

Journal of Management and Business Review

Syarif Hidayatullah

Information Sciences

Rodrigo José Pisani

Hanan Halabi

Camila Parra González

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

Bella Anastasiadou

CRISTHIAN DAVID TELLO HIDALGO

Neuropsychopharmacology

Edgar Hohlfeldt

Interdisciplinary Environmental Review

Keith Moser

Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law

joseph adekeye

International Journal of Drug Policy

Vicky Bungay

European review for medical and pharmacological sciences

francesca cittadini

hjhfggf hjgfdf

Franco Vazzoler

Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh: Section A Mathematics

Ravi Agarwal

International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology

Vanshika Singh

Biological Conservation

François Sarrazin

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• UWF Libraries

Literature Review: Conducting & Writing

• Sample Literature Reviews
• Steps for Conducting a Lit Review
• Finding "The Literature"
• Organizing/Writing
• APA Style This link opens in a new window
• Chicago: Notes Bibliography This link opens in a new window
• MLA Style This link opens in a new window

Sample Lit Reviews from Communication Arts

Have an exemplary literature review.

• Literature Review Sample 1
• Literature Review Sample 2
• Literature Review Sample 3

Have you written a stellar literature review you care to share for teaching purposes?

Are you an instructor who has received an exemplary literature review and have permission from the student to post?

Please contact Britt McGowan at [email protected] for inclusion in this guide. All disciplines welcome and encouraged.

• << Previous: MLA Style
• Next: Get Help! >>
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 9:37 AM
• URL: https://libguides.uwf.edu/litreview