About
Critical reviews illuminate a new work’s contribution to the field, carefully evaluating its worthiness and pointing out flaws and problems. Writing critical reviews can hone your analytical skills while increasing your knowledge of a discipline.
Writing Tips: Critical Review
Before You Write
When you’re writing a critical review about a book or article, you must understand the work that you are reviewing as well as its context within the field. Thus, it is easier to write a critical review if you’ve already done research, or if the work is in a field in which you already have some knowledge. If the topic is new to you, then you will have to do some background research in order to fairly analyze and evaluate the work.
- Carefully read the text you are reviewing.
- As you read the work, take notes on:
- The subject matter of the text (if it is another work, read this as well)
- The theoretical framework or perspective engaged by the author
- The author’s thesis
- Major points of analysis
- Arguments that are especially well-made
- Arguments that are unclear
- Areas that you would like more information
- Review other texts on the subject or work. Note predominant theories and threads of analysis.
- If possible, read other critiques of the text you are reviewing. You will create your own original review but can refer to these critiques to build your arguments and support your evaluation.
- If reviewing for a course:
- Review your class notes and other readings.
- Note accepted theories and frameworks.
- Consider the major topics of the course. How does this work fit into the class syllabus?
- Compare the thesis and direction of this work to the other critical works that you have read. How does it compare in argument, structure, and scope?
Evaluate the Work
When evaluating the work, consider other knowledge available in the field and how this piece fits into the paradigms and theories that are generally accepted. In your review, present your criteria for evaluating the work, address issues and questions raised by the work, and provide your assessment of its contributions, strengths, and weaknesses.
- Assess the logic, methods, and resources used by the author(s).
- Be critical and honest, but do not degrade the integrity, intelligence, or approach of the author(s).
- Fully explain and justify your criticisms using evidence from the work.
- Do not use your review to propose your own ideas and theories; focus on the work you are reviewing and its flaws, strengths, and contributions.
Ask yourself questions about the text to generate your evaluation and focus on its major features:
- What can be learned from this text?
- Is the work written clearly and organized coherently?
- How does the author’s theoretical framework compare to others that you’ve seen, and is it an appropriate one for this topic?
You should base your evaluation on how your chosen work to review fits into, contests, or adds to current theories and knowledge in your field of study. Your thesis should use existing perspectives and frameworks to suggest why the work you have chosen does or does not make a valuable contribution to your field. The rest of your review should then draw on established knowledge and theory to support the claims you make in your thesis.
When you evaluate a work for a critical review, you’ll nearly always find points that work against your thesis. Rather than excluding all of those points, include the most significant or commonly accepted arguments against your thesis. Either concede or refute them, explaining why your main thesis still stands in spite of their existence.
- Does the author have a bias?
- How does this text seem to add to knowledge on the topic?
- How might it be improved?
- What is missing that should have been covered?
Revise Your Critical Review
When writing your critical review, leave yourself time to go through the entire process of reading critically, planning, outlining, drafting, and revising. Revising is crucial when writing a critical review, as you must present another person’s work fairly and represent your evaluation of it clearly and coherently.
- Check all quoted and paraphrased material. Make sure that you have properly quoted/paraphrased and interpreted the author’s intention. If you are required to include citations, make sure your citations are accurate.
- Read your paper for organization. Do you provide enough background that your critiques are understandable? Do you include information later in your review that could help your reader understand the work and your review from the beginning?
- See if you have included too much summary information. The reader should still have a desire to read the reviewed work after reading your review.
- Look for important points that you may have omitted when writing your initial draft, as well as ideas that, with a second look, seem less significant to you, and might be deleted.
- Make sure your review is fair, honest, and enlightening. Could your criticisms help the author improve the work? Do your praises tell how the work contributes to knowledge about its topic or subject?
- Check your grammar, spelling, and sentence construction.
Elements of a Critical Review
What to Include
While there is some flexibility in the exact presentation of the material, critical reviews always include certain sections and types of information. Read other reviews in field journals that you respect or plan to publish in, and follow their formats.
Any review should have these basic sections:
Introduction
In your introduction, grab your reader’s attention with a descriptive statement or striking idea taken from the work itself.
- State the name and author of the work you’re reviewing, as well as the general topic and the purpose for this specific work within that context.
- State in your own words the author’s main point or thesis.
- State your own thesis about the work, which will offer your overall evaluation of its success.
Thesis
Here, provide a descriptive overview of your entire review.
- State the text you are reviewing.
- Provide enough information about the text that your thesis makes a clear statement of evaluation.
If relevant:- Name the subject of the text
- Name the theoretical framework or approach engaged by the author
- Indicate the major analytical points in the text which you will discuss
- Indicate your overall evaluation of it.
- State your main points of praise or criticism for it.
Summary and Background
The first section after the introduction is often a summary and background of the work. This section should offer enough information to allow the reader to understand the book well enough to make sense of your review.
- Give a general overview of the work, including a brief summary.
- Point out the author’s theoretical stance towards the topic, the most important issues raised in the work, and any other points you think the reader needs to know to understand your review without having read the book.
- Consider that your summary here will be relatively brief, as you will want to integrate summary with critical analysis of it throughout the paper, rather than divide the paper into two distinct sections, with one offering a long, detailed description of the work, and another offering analytical discussion.
Evaluation
In the following paragraphs, you’ll present your criteria for evaluating the work and review of it. Base your assessments on evidence from the work, such as quotations and paraphrases. You will probably need to include some material that goes against your thesis, such as a criticism of the work’s organization in a review that, in general, praises the work. Present such material in the form of a counterargument or refutation, explaining why your thesis is still valid in spite of its presence. Use a priority system when planning how much space to allot to each issue in or with the work that you will comment on.
For each issue you raise with the work:
- State the issue and your perspective on it. Be direct when introducing the issue: The author uses a number of theories to support her claim — so many that her reasoning is hard to follow.; or The author’s participation in these rare rituals allows her an inside view from which she develops a stunning portrayal of the community that forms around them.
- Provide evidence from the work. Use quotation, paraphrasing, and summary-analysis of the author’s arguments and theories to illustrate and support your evaluation.
- Explain and justify your perspective on the evidence you supply.
- Concisely re-express your evaluation before moving on to your next point.
Conclusion
Your conclusion should wrap up your main points of the paper, providing the reader with a clear sense of your perspective on the work. It should be consistent with your review and thesis — if you discuss only flaws in the study, do not conclude that the work was valuable.
- Wrap up your main points and summarize how they support your overall assessment. Weigh in on the positives and negatives you have raised.
- Reiterate your thesis using different words. Show that your discussion brings you back to this central point in your review. Make sure that your thesis is consistent with your review.
- Reflect on the work’s overall contribution to the field. Offer a suggestion or direction for further study.
See a Model: Critical Review
Critical Review
“Whitman Drunk”: A Modern Reading of Franklin Evans (Item 1)
“Whitman Drunk.” M. Warner. In Breaking Bounds: Whitman and American Cultural Studies. Ed. Betsy Erkkila and Jay Grossman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. (Item 2)
Analyzing Whitman’s temperance novel Franklin Evans in its historical context and early place in Whitman’s corpus, Michael Warner argues that dialecticism — conflict and disaccord — defines the novel and the temperance movement which it depicts, a fitting theme in light of Whitman’s later works. (Item 3) He identifies the core of the conflict as the inherent “heteronomy” of the self, the simultaneous desires to indulge the senses and be accepted by society, captured here in the struggle between sobriety and the drink. Whether Whitman is earnest in this work is often contested; many suggest that he wrote Franklin Evans ironically while inebriated, while others suggest that Whitman’s own struggles led him to support social control of drinking. Warner falls into the latter school of thought in his analysis. (Item 4) In “Whitman Drunk” (Item 5) Warner supports this claim through the novel’s valuations of “voluntary associations” and the ongoing conflict between self and society. Firmly positioning Franklin Evans in its historical context, Warner’s reading of the novel as propaganda typical of its time yet also as a typical Whitman work of internal conflict contributes significantly to modern perspectives on the work. (Item 6)
Warner points out that Franklin Evans was originally not circulated as a novel at all but as a tract, a newspaper supplement; (Item 7) it thus reached an involuntary mass audience and was endowed with advertisements relating to temperance. (Item 8) The impact of this is in the reach of the work’s messages and in the social implications of its use as propaganda. (Item 9) Franklin Evans contains the “thematic language of the temperance movement” and also embodies the movement’s social-cultural ideologies. (Item 10) When illustrating the evils of the desire, or “compulsion,” (Item 11) as he refers to it, to drink, Whitman shows its root in the similar desire to be social. Meanwhile, the driving idea behing temperance was that by abolishing the ability to drink, society could control both the sale of spirits and the social “associations” (Item 12) formed around it and ultimately improve the moral fiber of its members. Whitman makes this point forcefully in Franklin Evans‘s final chapter, which shows the namesake character sober, productive, and content, as opposed to drunk, penniless, and unhappy. Well-researched, “Whitman Drunk” firmly places Franklin Evans in the temperance debates of its time; (Item 13) in spite of his personal struggles, Whitman was, it turns out, in favor of social regulation of spirits. Through these bits of socio-historical evidence, Warner emphatically argues that the novel must be read in light of its original context — as propaganda for a controversial social issue, not an even-handed depiction of a social reality.
Warner argues that Whitman, in all of his works, struggles with issues of managing pleasure and desire, not just related to drink but in the general (Item 14) dialectic between want and the will. (Item 15) Providing a weighty philosophical analysis of temperance and dialecticism, Warner fits Franklin Evans into the greater thematics of Whitman’s corpus. (Item 16) Prior to the temperance movement’s redefinition of addiction as disease, the philosophy was that the will would not conflict with desire, and addiction was a reflection of succumbing to habit. Temperance, meanwhile, contended that addiction was a disease related to an inability to control desire. Warner suggests that this conflict, inherent to the temperance movement, is echoed throughout Whitman’s works in their constant sense of struggle within the self. Whitman dealt with this internal conflict between the will to be sober and the desire to drink in Franklin Evans; however, Warner illuminates alcohol’s mere supporting role in the novel to the philosophical struggles which Whitman continued to examine. Again proving his impeccable research, Warner tells us that in an Evans reprint entitled Fortunes of a Country Boy the temperance morals are in fact distilled to messages about personal resolve and making one’s own decisions. (Item 17) Thus, he suggests that the novel’s conflicts between will and compulsion and personal and group characterization can be read in a more universal, “Whitmanian” struggle of self-definition than a strict, historical reading of the temperance novel allows. (Item 18)
Warner effectively relates Franklin Evans to its contemporary social context and Whitman’s later work, offering insight into definitions of addiction and free will that continue to resonate today. (Item 19) By highlighting the different social environment in which Franklin Evans was originally received, Warner makes clear its relationship to the temperance movement; by explaining and thus universalizing the temperance-related themes, he makes it similarly available to the modern reader. (Item 20) Clearly temperance morals no longer retain the value or impact they had then, but morals of personal choice and resisting peer pressure remain salient, as does an understanding of the associative group mentality and its relation to individual will. Warner illuminates Whitman’s timeless approach to resolving the conflict of the will and compulsion, internal and social, and in turn sheds a twenty-first century light on the temperance messages in Franklin Evans.
References
Warner, Michael. “Whitman Drunk.” in Breaking Bounds: Whitman and American Cultural Studies. Ed. Betsy Erkkila and Jay Grossman. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Whitman, Walter. Franklin Evans or The Inebriate: A Tale of the Times. Ed. Jean Downey. New Haven, CT: College & University Press, 1967. (Item 21)
Features of a Critical Review
Item 1. The Title specifies the work reviewed and indicates the general direction of the review.
Item 2. This review provides bibliographic information for the reviewed work as a subtitle, so that interested readers can find it easily and to further contextualize the work.”
Item 3. This introduction is focused and direct. From this first sentence, the reader can tell that this review discusses Michael Warner’s review of Whitman’s Franklin Evans in light of dialectics, the temperance movement, and Whitman’s later works.
Item 4. The introduction briefly introduces common controversy around the novel for readers who may be unfamiliar with it. It also clearly identifies the reviewed work’s perspective.
Item 5. This critical review is actually a review of another person’s, Warner’s, review of the original work, Franklin Evans. The author must be familiar with both the review and the original work to write an accurate review.
Item 6. The thesis statement states the topic and direction of this review and names the major subtopics it will address. This review focuses on Warner’s socio-historical perspective that Franklin Evans is propaganda for the temperance movement. It also addresses the thematic similarities between Franklin Evans and Whitman’s later, more renowned works.
Item 7. This term, which many readers may not be familiar with, is defined in simple language.
Item 8. The first sentence of the paragraph introduces the topic that will be discussed. It indicates how this historical fact, that the novel was originally circulated as a newspaper supplement, is significant.
Item 9. An example from the review is provided, and its relation to the original work is analyzed. Depending on the requirements of the journal or course for which you are writing, page number citations may be necessary for all quoted and paraphrased evidence.
Item 10. The first supporting point of this paragraph is more general. It provides background support for Warner’s claim that Franklin Evans was a piece of propaganda for the temperance movement.
Item 11. These words in quotes are evidence of the “thematic language” that Warner argues for. Depending on the requirements of the journal or course for which you are writing, page number citations may be necessary for all quoted and paraphrased evidence.”
Item 12. These words in quotes are evidence of the “thematic language” that Warner argues for. Depending on the requirements of the journal or course for which you are writing, page number citations may be necessary for all quoted and paraphrased evidence.
Item 13. The review assesses the methodology of Warner’s review. Although others may disagree with Warner’s perspectives, he does support his points with strong research.
Item 14. In the first sentence of the paragraph, the topic of the paragraph is outlined. This topic sentence clearly relates back to the thesis as well.
Item 15. This term is repeated from the beginning of the review, creating a connection between this paragraph and the introduction. It is defined in the introduction as “conflict and disaccord”.
Item 16. This part of Warner’s review is noted as “weighty,” indicating its depth and difficult subject matter. Its relationship to the overall point of this and Warner’s review — that Evans fits the philosophical profile of many of Whitman’s works — is made clear.
Item 17. Warner’s in-depth research of the topic is again highlighted by this particular example, which supports the second major point of this review — that Franklin Evans contains thematic elements of Whitman’s later work.
Item 18. The concluding sentence of this paragraph sums up the points made in this paragraph and relates them to the overall point of the paper, stated in the thesis.
Item 19. The Conclusion provides a succinct, overall evaluation of the work reviewed. This sentence states the reviewer’s perspectives on the work.
Item 20. The major points of the essay are wrapped up.
Item 21. References, including the work(s) reviewed and any works cited, are provided in alphabetical order by the author’s last name. They are cited here in MLA format. These are necessary so that readers can find the reviewed works.
Revision Checklist: Critical Review
Focus/Purpose
Have you provided enough background for your audience to understand the work and your review of it?
- Provide context, such as social or historical setting, of the work.
- Discuss the scope of the work.
- Summarize the author’s main points for the reader.
- Give an overview of the text in brief summaries that pertain directly to points in your review.
- Refrain from offering too much detail. Provide only what is necessary for the audience to understand your review without reading the work.
Have you considered and applied prior knowledge in your evaluation of the work?
- Consider existing works and what you already know about the topic.
- Compare the work to others on the same topic. (Other reviews and abstracts are good starting resources to get a feel for the topic.)
- Explain contesting views to those of the author’s if they exist and are relevant to your critique.
- Use accepted theories, logics, methods, and assumptions to evaluate the work and its place in the field.
Development/Elaboration
Have you written an informative and interesting introduction?
- Make a striking, descriptive statement to grab your reader’s attention. Or, use an interesting quotation or idea from the reviewed work.
- State the author and title of the work.
- Explain the author’s purpose for the work.
- Use your own words to restate the author’s thesis.
- State your own thesis evaluating the work’s contribution and overall value to the field.
- Target your introduction to information that is relevant to the topic of the work and your critique of it.
- Do not provide a general history of the topic, field, or author.
Have you presented a detailed analysis in the body of your paper?
- Look closely at the author’s critical framework.
- Consider the quality of the methods, arguments, and writing involved.
- Consider how the text adds to knowledge on the topic, and what one might learn from it.
- Ask yourself if there is anything missing or lacking in the work.
- Avoid criticizing a work simply for what it does not have. Focus on what it does or tries to do and be specific about where it falls short.
Does your conclusion offer a firm evaluation of the work and provide direction for improvement or further study?
- Summarize your main points and how they support your overall assessment of the work.
- Restate your thesis using different words that reflect the course your review has taken.
- Check that your thesis and conclusion are consistent with the rest of your review.
- Suggest a direction for improvement or further study that builds from the work and your review.
Organization
Is your review organized into sections and paragraphs?
- Organize your writing into four basic sections: Introduction, Summary or Background, Evaluation, and Conclusion.
- Use headings to identify your sections if it is appropriate for your purposes. Check with your instructor, editor, or publisher.
- Group related ideas into paragraphs. Discuss one main idea in each paragraph and provide explanation and support.
Is your review balanced and logical in its discussion of topics and issues?
- Determine an appropriate amount of length to allot to discussion of each issue you raise.
- Balance these lengths according to significance and depth of each topic.
- Progress logically from issue to issue, based on importance, topical relationships, or whether issues are positive or negative. Avoid chronological order that simply summarizes and comments on the work.
- Use transitions to move from topic-to-topic and paragraph-to-paragraph smoothly and reinforce logical connections.
Have you integrated your evidence, analysis, and evaluation smoothly and coherently in your review?
- Offer pieces of evidence and your analysis and evaluation of them together in the body of your paper.
- Arrange your review around analytic and evaluative points rather than the order of the work you are reviewing.
- Show how evidence from the work explains and supports these points.
- Avoid writing the body of your review in sections of summary and sections of evaluation.
Language/Style
Is your review appropriate for your audience?
- Use language that your readers will understand. Assume that they are non-specialists but familiar with the basic terms in your field.
- Define key terms and theories in the reviewed work and in your review.
- Follow formats and styles used by reviewers in journals in your field.
Have you been fair and even-handed when discussing others’ work?
- Avoid being overly critical.
- Explain areas of conflict regarding the work you are reviewing.
- Offer the reasons for your critiques. Back these up with other research, theories, and evidence.