outline for critical review essay

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

• 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

Study Hacks Workshops | All the hacks you need! 28 May – 25 Jul 2024

Hexamester 4: Library 101 Webinar 3 Jul 2024

Write a Critical Review

What is a critical review, what should my first steps be in writing a critical review, parts of a critical review, resources to help with writing your essay.

• Parts of a Critical Review

Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call

More writing resources

• Check out our full list of online writing resources These guides, templates, and videos are designed to help academic writers at various stages of their writing process, including the pre-writing and revising stages.

Get assistance

The library offers a range of helpful services.  All of our appointments are free of charge and confidential.

• Book an appointment

A critical review is a description and evaluation of a source, usually a journal article or book. It moves beyond a summary to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the source and to comment on the quality of the source as a whole.

• Do not be confused by the term “critical”: it does not mean that you only look at the negative aspects of what the researcher has done. You should address both the positive and negative aspects.

Some instructors will use these words to refer to a critical review: 

• Critical analysis 
• Article or book report
• Article or book review
• Read the article or book carefully
• Briefly summarize the main point and key details of the source
• Originality (e.g. Does the study address a clear gap in the previously existing literature or in the field of study?) 
• Reliability (e.g. Is the article or book peer reviewed? Is it free of author bias?)
• Validity (e.g. Is the study repeatable? Are the research results generalizable?)
• Relevance (e.g. Is the research well connected or related to other research in the field? Does it make a useful or timely contribution?)
• Presentation (e.g. Is the article or book well organized? Does the writing logically flow between sections, paragraphs, and sentences? 
• Analyze the strengths and weaknesses to determine the source’s overall value and contribution to the area of study. 
• The specific purpose, length, and amount of research will vary from assignment to assignment.
• Some, but not all, critical reviews will require you to support your ideas with information from other sources. 
• Introduction
• How can I Improve my Critical Review?

• Library Help Videos On YouTube
• How to Read an Article (Video)
• Next: Parts of a Critical Review >>
• 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.

Book Reviews

What this handout is about.

This handout will help you write a book review, a report or essay that offers a critical perspective on a text. It offers a process and suggests some strategies for writing book reviews.

What is a review?

A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms. This handout will focus on book reviews. For a similar assignment, see our handout on literature reviews .

Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into dialogue and discussion with the work’s creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:

• First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
• Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
• Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.

Becoming an expert reviewer: three short examples

Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison’s new book if you’ve never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work’s creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.

Consider the following brief book review written for a history course on medieval Europe by a student who is fascinated with beer:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600, investigates how women used to brew and sell the majority of ale drunk in England. Historically, ale and beer (not milk, wine, or water) were important elements of the English diet. Ale brewing was low-skill and low status labor that was complimentary to women’s domestic responsibilities. In the early fifteenth century, brewers began to make ale with hops, and they called this new drink “beer.” This technique allowed brewers to produce their beverages at a lower cost and to sell it more easily, although women generally stopped brewing once the business became more profitable.

The student describes the subject of the book and provides an accurate summary of its contents. But the reader does not learn some key information expected from a review: the author’s argument, the student’s appraisal of the book and its argument, and whether or not the student would recommend the book. As a critical assessment, a book review should focus on opinions, not facts and details. Summary should be kept to a minimum, and specific details should serve to illustrate arguments.

Now consider a review of the same book written by a slightly more opinionated student:

Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 was a colossal disappointment. I wanted to know about the rituals surrounding drinking in medieval England: the songs, the games, the parties. Bennett provided none of that information. I liked how the book showed ale and beer brewing as an economic activity, but the reader gets lost in the details of prices and wages. I was more interested in the private lives of the women brewsters. The book was divided into eight long chapters, and I can’t imagine why anyone would ever want to read it.

There’s no shortage of judgments in this review! But the student does not display a working knowledge of the book’s argument. The reader has a sense of what the student expected of the book, but no sense of what the author herself set out to prove. Although the student gives several reasons for the negative review, those examples do not clearly relate to each other as part of an overall evaluation—in other words, in support of a specific thesis. This review is indeed an assessment, but not a critical one.

Here is one final review of the same book:

One of feminism’s paradoxes—one that challenges many of its optimistic histories—is how patriarchy remains persistent over time. While Judith Bennett’s Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 recognizes medieval women as historical actors through their ale brewing, it also shows that female agency had its limits with the advent of beer. I had assumed that those limits were religious and political, but Bennett shows how a “patriarchal equilibrium” shut women out of economic life as well. Her analysis of women’s wages in ale and beer production proves that a change in women’s work does not equate to a change in working women’s status. Contemporary feminists and historians alike should read Bennett’s book and think twice when they crack open their next brewsky.

This student’s review avoids the problems of the previous two examples. It combines balanced opinion and concrete example, a critical assessment based on an explicitly stated rationale, and a recommendation to a potential audience. The reader gets a sense of what the book’s author intended to demonstrate. Moreover, the student refers to an argument about feminist history in general that places the book in a specific genre and that reaches out to a general audience. The example of analyzing wages illustrates an argument, the analysis engages significant intellectual debates, and the reasons for the overall positive review are plainly visible. The review offers criteria, opinions, and support with which the reader can agree or disagree.

Developing an assessment: before you write

There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft. See our handout on argument .

What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don’t feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the book in question.

• What is the thesis—or main argument—of the book? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the book, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the book accomplished?
• What exactly is the subject or topic of the book? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
• How does the author support their argument? What evidence do they use to prove their point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author’s information (or conclusions) conflict with other books you’ve read, courses you’ve taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
• How does the author structure their argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
• How has this book helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the book to your reader?

Beyond the internal workings of the book, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the text’s production:

• Who is the author? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape. Does it matter, for example, that the biographer was the subject’s best friend? What difference would it make if the author participated in the events they write about?
• What is the book’s genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first book ever written on the subject, it will be important for your readers to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming “firsts”—alongside naming “bests” and “onlys”—can be a risky business unless you’re absolutely certain.

Writing the review

Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Check out our handout on thesis statements . Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.

Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author’s argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.

Introduction

Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. The Writing Center’s handout on introductions can help you find an approach that works. In general, you should include:

• The name of the author and the book title and the main theme.
• Relevant details about who the author is and where they stand in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
• The context of the book and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your “take” on the book. Perhaps you want to situate a book about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the book in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
• The thesis of the book. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the book’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
• Your thesis about the book.

Summary of content

This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you’ll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the book, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.

The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book’s contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as a class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument. See our handout on summary for more tips.

Analysis and evaluation of the book

Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the book as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly. You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the book as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the book. If you find it useful to include comparisons to other books, keep them brief so that the book under review remains in the spotlight. Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author’s points in your own words.

Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the book. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the book if they extend the logic of your own thesis. This paragraph needs to balance the book’s strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to? The Writing Center’s handout on conclusions can help you make a final assessment.

Finally, a few general considerations:

• Review the book in front of you, not the book you wish the author had written. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don’t criticize the book for not being something it was never intended to be.
• With any luck, the author of the book worked hard to find the right words to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
• Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
• Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the book for its audience. You’re entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad book takes as long to write as a good one, and every author deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
• A great place to learn about book reviews is to look at examples. The New York Times Sunday Book Review and The New York Review of Books can show you how professional writers review books.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Drewry, John. 1974. Writing Book Reviews. Boston: Greenwood Press.

Hoge, James. 1987. Literary Reviewing. Charlottesville: University Virginia of Press.

Sova, Dawn, and Harry Teitelbaum. 2002. How to Write Book Reports , 4th ed. Lawrenceville, NY: Thomson/Arco.

Walford, A.J. 1986. Reviews and Reviewing: A Guide. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

How to write a critical review

Our guide on what it means to think critically when assessing a piece of writing for a student assignment or a workplace project.

When an academic assignment asks you to “critically review” or include a “critical analysis” of the work of other people, it generally means that you’ll need to “think critically”. This means analysing and assessing the work in terms of what the author was trying to achieve, the approach they took, how they conducted the research, and whether the outcomes were valid and acceptable. 

A critical review evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an item’s ideas and content. It provides description, analysis and interpretation that assess the item’s value. It’s an exercise that can be carried out on many different types of writing, but is most often carried out on a report, a book or a journal article. 

Thousands of publications relevant to HR appear every year, via established journals, websites, management consultancy reports and universities all over the world. With so much information becoming available, many of which offer new ideas, new HR theories and approaches, it’s important that HR practitioners can evaluate whether what they read is valid, sound and unbiased. We can’t take everything we read at face value, and it’s an important skill, and a very important activity to conduct, if you’re going to base corporate change and your proposals to management on information from published sources. 

On this page

Selecting an item to review, the critical review process, writing the critical review, useful contacts and books, view our other study guides.

For study purposes, it's likely that you'll be asked to carry out a critical review of one or more journal articles. You may be directed to a specific journal article, or asked to select one based on your own research on a particular topic, or on a topic of your choice.  

If you're given options to make a choice, you're more likely to achieve the required outcome if you use well-known academic journals. These might be found in a library, on HR websites such as HR Focus, or via any online journal hosting service, such as EBSCO which is provided free to CIPD members.  

An article will only be useful for a critical review assignment if the author has stated what the question was, how the research was done and the outcomes or conclusions based on the facts and evidence listed.  

What is a journal?  

A journal (sometimes also called a “ periodical ” ) is a publication produced on a regular continuing basis – it may be weekly, monthly, quarterly (every three months) or annually.  

The titles of journals (for example The Journal of Occupational Psychology ) indicate the main topic focus of the articles contained in it.  

As they are published regularly, journals usually have volume and issue numbers, and sometimes months, to identify them.  

A volume usually covers a specific year – so, for example, volume 45 may be all the issues published in 2013.  

A n issue number refers to a specific instalment of the journal within that volume – they are often numbered issue or number 1, 2, 3, etc.  

A s well as, or instead of, a volume and issue number, some journals use the month of publication. This information is often crucial in finding specific articles.  

There are two main types of journal :  

Academic journal (also called scholarly journals) – T hese often contain research articles written by subject experts; they contain academic commentary and critical evaluation of issues by experts. The articles will be written in an academic style and they may be “ refereed ” or “ peer-reviewed ” – that is they articles are assessed, often by members of an editorial board who are experts in the field, before they are accepted for publication. Articles from this type of journal are usually suitable for a critical review exercise. The International Journal of Human Resource Management and Harvard Business Review are examples.  

Trade or professional journals – T hese usually contain news articles and comment on current issues. The articles often contain practical information and are written in everyday language. They also often have a “ jobs ” section and news of people in that profession. They are likely to be written by journalists rather than academics and don't usually have such rigorous publishing criteria. These articles may not be so suitable for a critical review exercise. People Management is an example.  

Take time to:  

Think about what content are you expecting, based on the title?  

Read the abstract for a summary of the author's arguments.  

Study the list of references to determine what research contributed to the author's arguments. Are the references recent? Do they represent important work in the field by accredited authors?  

Find out more about the author to learn what authority they have to write about the subject. Have they published other works which have been peer-assessed by other experts?  

Read the article carefully, but straight-through the first time to form an impression. You may find it useful to note down your initial reactions and questions. Then re-read it, either right-through or in sections, taking notes of the key ideas. Use these questions as a framework.  

Who was the article written for?  

Why has the author written the article? To survey and summarise research on a topic? Or to present an argument that builds on past research? Or to disagree with another writer’s stated argument?  

Does the author define important terms?  

Is the information in the article fact or opinion? Facts can be verified, while opinions arise from perceptions and interpretation.  

Is the article well-structured? Is it organised logically and easy to follow?  

Is the information well-researched, or is it largely unsupported?  

What are the author’s central arguments or conclusions? Are they supported by evidence and analysis?  

If the article reports on an experiment or study, does the author clearly outline methodology and the expected result?  

Is the article lacking any information or arguments that you expected to find?  

For more on effective reading and note-taking, see our guide on studying effectively.  

A key part of a critical review is assessing the author's “argument”. In this context, the argument is the line of reasoning or the approach or point of view of the author. It may be the author is defending a particular idea. They may be trying to make a case for something, perhaps a new idea, in which case there would then need to be evidence, examples and a clear set of conclusions coming from the research, or investigation done. To be academically acceptable, any outcomes stated should not be just the author's ideas alone, they must be backed up with valid, appropriate evidence.  

Questions to ask yourself about the item you're reviewing are:  

Is there a logical progression through the argument?  

Do you feel the argument is strong enough?  

Is there enough valid evidence?  

Does the author make any assumptions and, if so, are they reasonable?  

Are any surveys valid – for example, is the sample size representative and large enough for any conclusions to be valid?  

Would the findings and conclusions apply to other organisations, or are they too specific? Why?  

Do you think the author was biased? Why? For example, it can be useful to think about who funded the research and whether could that have influenced the findings.  

It's important to remember that you don't need to agree with the author's views – this would form part of your critical thinking.  

A key skill when thinking critically is to be objective in what you are reading or thinking through. Look at both sides of the argument, think of some tests you could do to establish if the ideas are sound. You might apply them to your own organisation for instance.  

The output from critical thinking in a professional context is usually a report – a critical review of the item(s) chosen for a given purpose (for example, as student assignment or, in a work setting, to a project team).  

The steps are to:  

Select your area for review, and the reason for choosing it.  

Identify the different information sources reviewed, naming type, when accessed, and through which online database or source.  

Explain why you chose these source(s) to review (unless they were given to you).  

Highlight and comment on the different research approaches and methods used by the author(s).  

Comment on the argument and conclusions, drawing where necessary on your wider research.  

If required, make recommendations to named stakeholders for sustaining or improving practice, based on the findings in your sources.

Open University – critical reading techniques  

Open University – critically processing what you read  

Palgrave Study Skills – critical thinking  

CAMERON, S. (2009) The business student's handbook: skills for study and employment . 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.  

COTTRELL, S. (2013) The study skills handbook . 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  

COTTRELL, S. (2011) Critical thinking skills . 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  

HORN. R. (2009) The business skills handbook . London: CIPD.  

NORTHEDGE, A. (2005) The good study guide . 2nd ed. Milton Keynes: Open University.  

OPEN UNIVERSITY. (2007) Develop effective study strategies . Milton Keynes: Open University

Our guide to helping you compile bibliographies based on the Harvard system.

There are a number of key considerations when developing an approach to studying to suit you. These study tips will help ensure you study effectively.

Practical advice on the report-writing process, with key steps to improve the quality of business reports

An academic essay is a formal piece of writing which presents an argument to the reader. Learn how to write persuasive and robust academic essays.

Our online Community

A place to learn, debate and connect with other HR and L&D professionals

More on this topic

Interactive career tools, including career assessments, personal development planner, elevator pitch builder, and interview simulator.

Supporting CIPD members in successful job search

Listen to our webinar to hear how our new qualifications could give you the skills and knowledge you need to excel in the people profession.

Latest guides

This guide offers advice on assessing skills, planning skills development and deploying and redeploying staff

Practical guidance on helping employees adapt and thrive when faced with workplace stress

Advice and tips on how HR professionals can support organisational and individual resilience

Guidance for employers on starting or improving an internship programme, including a checklist and model agreement

How to Write a Critical Book Review

Your review should have two goals: first, to inform the reader about the content of the book, and second, to provide an evaluation that gives your judgment of the book’s quality.

Your introduction should include an overview of the book that both incorporates an encapsulated summary and a sense of your general judgment. This is the equivalent to a thesis statement.

Do NOT spend more than one-third or so of the paper summarizing the book. The summary should consist of a discussion and highlights of the major arguments, features, trends, concepts, themes, ideas, and characteristics of the book. While you may use direct quotes from the book (make sure you always give the page number), such quotes should never be the bulk of the summary. Much of your grade will depend on how well you describe and explain the material IN YOUR OWN WORDS. You might want to take the major organizing themes of the book and use them to organize your own discussion. This does NOT mean, however, that I want a chapter-by-chapter summary. Your goal is a unified essay.

So what do I want, if not just a summary? Throughout your summary, I want you to provide a critique of the book. (Hence the title: “A Critical Book Review.”) A critique consists of thoughts, responses, and reactions. It is not necessarily negative. Nor do you need to know as much about the subject as the author (because you hardly ever will). The skills you need are an ability to follow an argument and test a hypothesis. Regardless of how negative or positive your critique is, you need to be able to justify and support your position.

Here are a number of questions that you can address as part of your critique. You need not answer them all, but questions one and two are essential to any book review, so those must be included. And these are ABSOLUTELY NOT to be answered one after another ( seriatim ). Don’t have one paragraph that answers one, and then the next paragraph that answers the next, etc. The answers should be part of a carefully constructed essay, complete with topic sentences and transitions.

• What is your overall opinion of the book? On what basis has this opinion been formulated? That is, tell the reader what you think and how you arrived at this judgment. What did you expect to learn when you picked up the book? To what extent – and how effectively – were your expectations met? Did you nod in agreement (or off to sleep)? Did you wish you could talk back to the author? Amplify upon and explain your reactions.
• Identify the author’s thesis and explain it in your own words. How clearly and in what context is it stated and, subsequently, developed? To what extent and how effectively (i.e., with what kind of evidence) is this thesis proven? Use examples to amplify your responses. If arguments or perspectives were missing, why do you think this might be?
• What are the author’s aims? How well have they been achieved, especially with regard to the way the book is organized? Are these aims supported or justified? (You might look back at the introduction to the book for help). How closely does the organization follow the author’s aims?
• How are the author’s main points presented, explained, and supported? What assumptions lie behind these points? What would be the most effective way for you to compress and/or reorder the author’s scheme of presentation and argument?
• How effectively does the author draw claims from the material being presented? Are connections between the claims and evidence made clearly and logically? Here you should definitely use examples to support your evaluation.
• What conclusions does the author reach and how clearly are they stated? Do these conclusions follow from the thesis and aims and from the ways in which they were developed? In other words, how effectively does the book come together?
• Identify the assumptions made by the author in both the approach to and the writing of the book. For example, what prior knowledge does the author expect readers to possess? How effectively are those assumptions worked into the overall presentation? What assumptions do you think should not have been made? Why?
• Are you able to detect any underlying philosophy of history held by the author (e.g., progress, decline, cyclical, linear, and random)? If so, how does this philosophy affect the presentation of the argument?
• How does the author see history as being motivated: primarily by the forces of individuals, economics, politics, social factors, nationalism, class, race, gender, something else? What kind of impact does this view of historical motivation have upon the way in which the author develops the book?
• Does the author’s presentation seem fair and accurate? Is the interpretation biased? Can you detect any distortion, exaggeration, or diminishing of material? If so, for what purpose might this have been done, and what effect does hit have on the overall presentation?

These questions are derived from Robert Blackey, “Words to the Whys: Crafting Critical Book Reviews,” The History Teacher, 27.2 (Feb. 1994): 159-66.

– Serena Zabin, Feb. 2003

Home ➔ How to Write an Essay ➔ Review Essay

Review Essay Guide

Review essays are fundamental to academic and professional fields, offering more than just summaries of existing literature. They provide critical analysis, synthesize various viewpoints, and evaluate the contributions of scholarly works to a particular field. In this introductory section, we’ll outline what review essays are, their purpose, and their importance:

• Definition : Review essays are analytical writings that go beyond summarizing existing research. They involve a comprehensive assessment of scholarly works, discussing their strengths, weaknesses, and contributions to a particular field of study.
• Purpose : In academic settings, review essays are crucial for fostering deep engagement with subject matter, developing critical thinking, and enhancing scholarly discourse. Professionally, they can influence policy decisions, guide research directions, and impact industry practices.

We aim to provide a thorough guide on crafting effective review essays. This includes understanding their key elements, exploring various approaches, and offering practical advice for writing, structuring, and refining your work.

This guide will serve as a comprehensive resource, whether you’re a student, researcher, or professional, offering insights into the art of writing impactful review essays.

Key Elements of a Review Essay

When crafting a review essay, understanding its key components is crucial. A well-structured review essay not only showcases the writer’s comprehension of the subject but also provides valuable insights into the field of study. Below are the essential elements that should be included in a review essay:

• The essay should demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic under review. This includes grasping the core issues, problems, or debates that the subject encompasses.
• A critical part of the review essay is briefly summarizing the main arguments and conclusions of the sources under review. This summary should capture the essence of the authors’ viewpoints and findings.
• An effective review essay goes beyond summarizing by critically analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed material. This analysis evaluates the arguments’ validity, the evidence’s sufficiency, and the conclusions’ soundness.
• The essay should also discuss how the reviewed works contribute to the broader field of study. This involves analyzing the significance of the research, its impact on existing knowledge, and potential implications for future research.

To further clarify these elements, the following table provides a breakdown of each component and its significance:

By incorporating these elements, a review essay provides a comprehensive, analytical, and insightful look into the subject matter, offering both a summary and a critical evaluation of the existing literature.

Approaches to Writing a Review Essay

Selecting the right approach is pivotal when writing a review essay. The approach you choose should align with your essay’s objective and the nature of the subject matter. Here are some of the common approaches to writing a review essay and guidelines on how to choose the most suitable one:

• State of the Art Review : This approach focuses on the most current research in a given area. It’s ideal when your objective is to offer new perspectives or highlight areas needing further research in rapidly evolving fields.
• Historical Review : A historical review explores the development of a particular field of study over time. This approach suits essays aiming to provide context, trace the evolution of thought, or understand the historical progression of a subject.
• Comparison of Perspectives Review : This method contrasts different viewpoints on a topic. It’s particularly effective when there’s a debate or various perspectives on the subject matter. It helps in illustrating contrasting research and introducing new viewpoints by comparison.
• Synthesis of Two Fields Review : Useful when different fields intersect on a common problem or topic, this approach brings together literature from multiple disciplines, providing a comprehensive view and uncovering insights that might not be apparent within a single field.
• Theoretical Model Building Review : Involves examining literature to develop new theoretical assumptions or models. This is apt for essays that propose new theories or conceptual frameworks based on existing research.

Choosing the Right Approach

The choice of approach largely depends on your essay’s objective and the subject matter’s nature. Consider the following when deciding:

• Purpose of the Essay : Are you aiming to provide a comprehensive overview, challenge existing theories, introduce new perspectives, or trace historical developments? Your purpose will guide the choice of approach.
• Nature of the Subject Matter : Some subjects might be better suited to particular approaches. For instance, rapidly advancing scientific fields might benefit more from a state of the art review.
• Available Literature : The amount and type of literature available on your topic can also influence your approach. A rich historical body of work lends itself to a historical review, while a topic with diverse viewpoints might be better suited for comparing perspectives.
• Your Expertise and Interest : Your academic background and interests can also guide your choice. An area you are more familiar with might lend itself to a more complex approach, like theoretical model building.

By thoughtfully selecting the appropriate approach, your review essay can effectively achieve its objectives and make a meaningful contribution to understanding the topic.

Preparation for Writing

Adequate preparation is crucial for writing a well-organized review essay. This involves thorough reading of the primary sources and engaging critically with the material. Here are key steps and strategies for preparing to write a review essay:

• Reading and Understanding Primary Sources : Begin with a comprehensive reading of your primary sources. This includes not just the main content but also supplementary sections like prefaces, introductions, and conclusions, which often provide valuable insights into the author’s intentions and the scope of the work.
• Engaging in Critical Thinking : As you read, engage in critical thinking. Ask yourself questions about the author’s arguments, the evidence presented, and the overall coherence of the work. This critical engagement will help in forming a deeper understanding of the material.
• Formulating Questions During Reading : Develop questions as you read through the material. These questions can range from inquiries about the author’s perspective to the implications of their arguments. This practice helps identify gaps, contradictions, or areas that need further exploration.
• Read Prefaces and Introductions : These sections often set the tone of the work and provide a roadmap of the content.
• Review Each Chapter : After reading each chapter, take a moment to summarize the major points in your own words.
• Engage with the Author’s Ideas : Imagine having a conversation with the author. This can help in critically analyzing the text and formulating your own viewpoints.

The following table provides a summary of these strategies:

By following these steps, you will be well-prepared to write a review essay that is insightful, well-informed, and critically engaging.

Structuring the Review Essay

The structure of a review essay is fundamental to its effectiveness and clarity. A well-structured essay not only guides the reader through your arguments but also enhances the impact of your analysis. To achieve this, a review essay should be clear, concise, focused, and analytical.

• Clear and Concise Communication : The hallmark of a good review essay is its clarity. Complex ideas should be conveyed in an understandable manner, making the essay accessible to a broad audience. Avoid unnecessary jargon or overly complex sentences. Conciseness is equally important. Your essay should be direct and to the point, providing enough detail to support your arguments without becoming verbose.
• Defining Terms and Providing Evidence : A crucial step in structuring your essay is defining key terms central to your argument. This clarifies your position and ensures your reader is not lost in specialized terminology. Equally important is backing up your claims with appropriate examples and evidence . This could range from quotations and data to specific instances or case studies that illustrate your points.
• Maintaining an Informative and Focused Approach : Your essay should have a clear and narrow focus. This focus allows you to delve deeply into your topic and provide detailed insights. Every part of the essay should serve the purpose of reinforcing your main argument or thesis. This focused approach ensures that your essay remains informative and relevant to your topic.
• Beyond Summarization – Analysis, Synthesis, and Interpretation : A review essay should not merely summarize the existing literature. Instead, it should add to the conversation through analysis, synthesis , and interpretation. Analyze the material to identify patterns, contradictions, or gaps. Synthesize different viewpoints to create a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Interpret the findings in a way that provides new insights or perspectives, thereby contributing to the academic discussion on the subject.

Structuring your review essay with clarity, conciseness, focus, and analytical depth is essential. This approach makes your essay more engaging and informative and demonstrates your ability to critically engage with and contribute to the academic discourse.

Academic Rigor and Documentation

A key aspect of writing a review essay is maintaining academic rigor and ensuring proper documentation. This not only reinforces the credibility of your essay but also upholds the ethical standards of academic writing.

• Utilizing Academic Sources : The backbone of a review essay is the sources it draws upon. Prioritize using academic sources, including peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books, and authoritative research articles. These sources provide reliable, vetted information that forms a strong foundation for your arguments and analyses. Using academic sources enhances your essay’s validity and shows your engagement with the scholarly community.
• The Imperative of Proper Documentation : Accurate and consistent documentation is crucial in a review essay. It serves a dual purpose – preventing plagiarism and directing readers to the original sources. Whether you are paraphrasing or quoting directly , each instance of sourced information must be properly cited according to the appropriate academic style guide (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.). This practice is not just about avoiding plagiarism; it is about contributing to an ongoing scholarly conversation by acknowledging the work of others.
• Quoting with Precision and Purpose : When it comes to quoting sources, less is often more. Over-reliance on direct quotations can overshadow your own voice and analytical insights. Use quotes sparingly and ensure they are directly relevant to your argument. When you do quote, integrate the quotation seamlessly into your essay, maintaining the flow and coherence of your writing. Paraphrasing is another effective way to reference ideas from your sources while maintaining your unique voice and perspective. Remember that proper citation is non-negotiable regardless of whether you quote directly or paraphrase.

Incorporating these practices in your review essay not only upholds academic integrity but also strengthens your arguments, ensuring that your essay is both credible and ethically sound.

Writing the Review

Writing a review essay involves a series of actionable steps to ensure clarity, depth, and coherence in your work. Here’s a detailed guide to help you navigate through the process:

Step 1: Define Your Thesis or Research Question

Begin by clearly stating the thesis or main research question of your essay. This statement should be concise and articulate the central theme or argument you intend to explore. It will guide your writing process, ensuring that all your analysis and critical discussion are relevant and focused.

Step 2: Organize Your Research

Gather and organize your research materials. Create an outline based on the themes, methodologies, or chronological order of the sources. This outline will help structure your essay and ensure you cover all the necessary points in a logical sequence.

Step 3: Critical Reading and Note-Taking

As you read through your sources, engage in critical thinking. Take notes on key arguments, methodologies, findings, and how these relate to your thesis. Look for patterns, contradictions, and gaps in the literature. This step is crucial for understanding the broader context of your topic and for forming your own perspective.

Step 4: Develop Your Argument

Using your outline and notes, start developing your argument. Ensure each paragraph or section clearly addresses a part of your thesis. Use evidence from your sources to support your points, and explain how this evidence relates to your overall argument.

Step 5: Address Controversies and Debates

Identify and discuss any controversies or major debates present in the literature. Present these objectively, showing how they relate to your thesis. Use these discussions to demonstrate research gaps or pose new questions that could be explored in further studies.

Step 6: Synthesize and Analyze

Go beyond summarizing your sources. Synthesize the information to draw new insights and critically analyze the texts to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Your analysis should add to the existing literature by providing a unique perspective or interpretation.

Step 7: Write the Introduction and Conclusion

Craft your introduction to set the context for your essay and present your thesis. Your conclusion should summarize the key points of your analysis and reiterate how they support your thesis. It should also suggest implications, future research directions, or final thoughts on the subject.

Step 8: Review and Refine

Review your essay for clarity and coherence. Check if each section transitions smoothly and contributes to your overall argument. Look for areas that need more development or clarification. Proofread to correct grammatical errors and ensure consistency in style and formatting.

Step 9: Proper Documentation

Throughout your essay, ensure that all sources are properly cited. This includes both in-text citations and a comprehensive bibliography. Proper documentation is crucial to establish credibility and to allow readers to follow up on your sources.

Step 10: Seek Feedback

Before finalizing your essay, consider getting feedback from peers, mentors, or advisors. They can provide valuable insights, point out areas that need improvement, and help refine your argument.

By following these steps, you can systematically approach writing your review essay, ensuring that it is well-researched, coherent, and critically engaging. Each step is designed to build upon the last, culminating in a comprehensive and insightful piece of academic writing.

In this guide, we have explored the essential steps and strategies for writing a successful review essay. To recap, here are the key points to remember:

• Define Your Thesis : Clearly state the central argument or research question of your essay.
• Organize and Analyze Your Research : Gather your sources, create an organized outline, and engage in critical reading and analysis.
• Develop a Coherent Argument : Build your essay around your thesis, using evidence from your research to support your points.
• Address Controversies and Debates : Objectively discuss any debates or controversies in the literature, using them to enrich your analysis.
• Synthesize Information : Go beyond summarizing sources to draw new insights and perspectives.
• Write Clearly and Concisely : Ensure that your essay is well-structured, with clear transitions and a logical flow of ideas.
• Review and Refine : Revise your essay for clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.
• Proper Documentation : Cite your sources correctly to avoid plagiarism and provide references for further reading.
• Seek Feedback : Get input from peers or mentors to refine your argument and writing.

The table below provides a quick reference to these key steps:

We encourage you to apply these guidelines in your own review essay writing. These steps, when followed diligently, can help you craft an insightful and impactful essay.

Further Resources

To deepen your understanding of writing review essays, consider exploring the following resources:

• Books on Academic Writing : Look for books that specifically focus on academic writing skills, including essay structure, argument development, and effective communication.
• Online Writing Workshops : Many universities offer online workshops or webinars on academic writing, which can provide practical tips and interactive guidance.
• Writing Centers : Utilize the resources available at your institution’s writing center. They often offer one-on-one consultations, workshops, and writing guides.
• Scholarly Journals : Read review essays published in academic journals to get a sense of different writing styles and approaches.
• Style Guides : Familiarize yourself with style guides like APA, MLA, or Chicago, which provide detailed instructions on citation and formatting.
• Research Methodology Books : These can help you understand how to analyze and synthesize research effectively.
• Peer-Review Platforms : Engage with platforms where you can submit your work for peer review or review others’ essays to gain different perspectives.

These resources can provide additional guidance and support as you refine your skills in writing review essays. Remember, writing is a skill that improves with practice, so continue to seek out opportunities to learn and grow as a writer.

Was this article helpful?

• University of Memphis Libraries
• Research Guides

CJUS 3130: Research Methods

• Critical Book Review Guide/Rubric
• Required Readings/Books
• Topic Selection Guide
• Annotated Bibliography Guide/Rubric
• Thesis Statement Guide/Rubric
• Research Writing Assignment Rubric

Sample Guidelines for Critical Book Review

• Interlibrary Loan

Preliminary Considerations

First, one must understand that a critical book review is not a book report (a summary of the contents of a book). A critical book review is a vehicle for examining and discussing issues the book itself raises or fails to raise. One writes a critical book review for the benefit of those who might not presently have time to read the book but who nevertheless need to learn more about its basic approach should they desire to read or study it at a future time. The job of the book reviewer is to inform these readers concerning any merits and/or shortcomings the book may have. From information based on a well-written review, the reader may conclude that this book is either indispensable or inconsequential.

Components of a Critical Book Review

A. Give complete bibliographical information at the top of the page (title, author, publisher, place of publication, date of publication, number of pages, and name of reviewer).

Use the following format:

Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament , by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, l987. 250 pages. Reviewed by Randy C. Slocum.

B. Briefly state the reason this book was chosen for review. State the author's credentials (education, place of employment, previous achievements, etc.) as a preface to giving the book a serious hearing. Biographical information about the author should be included only as it demonstrates the author’s competency to write the book. Within the context of the paper, do not use titles (Dr., Rev., etc.). In most brief reviews, you will likely need to limit the introduction to one or two paragraphs.

C. Briefly (in one or two well-written sentences) summarize the thesis of the book. This is a crucial step because the thesis contains the reason why the author produced this particular book (there may be dozens on the market with similar subject matter). The thesis will state the author's basic presuppositions and approach. The critical nature of the book review will then grow from the reviewer's conclusion that the book does or does not achieve the author's stated purpose.

D. The main body of a critical book review will be concerned with "thesis development." That is, did the author achieve the stated purpose? In this section the reviewer will inspect each of the chapters of the book to see how the thesis is (or is not) developed. If the author makes progress and develops the thesis convincingly, providing adequate information and statistical data, the reviewer says so, providing concrete examples and citing their page numbers in the text.

Given the limited amount of space in a brief book review, footnotes should not be utilized. Quotations or ideas taken directly from the text should be followed parenthetically by the page number of the quotation. The abbreviation for page(s) (p./pp.) should not be used.

Rainer argues that evangelistic churches should focus on reaching youth (20). Indeed, he writes, “Many churches fail to recognize that adolescence is a critical time of receptivity to the gospel” (21).

If the thesis is poorly developed or if the examples are inadequate to support the assertions of the author, the reviewer will point this out as well. Most critical book reviews will contain both praise and criticism, carefully weighed and balanced against one another.

Remember the purpose of a critical book review is not to provide a summary of the book. You may assume that the professor and the grader know the contents of the book.

Questions the reviewer will seek to answer in this section might include:

• Is there an adequate, consistent development of the author's stated thesis? Why or why not?
• What is the author’s purpose, i.e., what does he/she hope to accomplish through this book? Does the author accomplish the purpose? If so, how does he/she do so? If not, why not?
• Does the author approach the subject with any biases, i.e., do the author’s theological, experiential, philosophical, denominational, or cultural perspectives influence his/her conclusions?
• Does the author properly support his/her thesis? Does the author adequately consider and refute opposing viewpoints? Is the book limited in application to specific types of churches? Is the book relevant to contemporary culture?
• Does the author have to resort to suppression of contrary evidence in order to make the thesis credible (slanting)? If so, what additional evidence would weaken the case? • Is the thesis sound but marred by a flawed procedure?
• Is the author's case proved, or would another thesis have been more appropriately chosen?

E. Finally, a summary section should be attached. How does this book differ from other treatments of the same subject matter? What is unique and valuable about this approach as opposed to the others? Would the reviewer recommend this book above others? Why or why not?

This final summary should include the major strengths and weaknesses of the book and evaluate its value for readers who may be interested in that particular field of inquiry. Your primary purpose in this section is to respond both positively and negatively to the book’s contents and presentation. Needless to say, this response should be more in-depth than, “This book is a good book that should be recommended reading for everyone.” On the other hand, “This book is a lousy book not worth reading” is also inadequate. Central to this is the basic question of whether or not the author has achieved the book's stated purpose.

Answer questions such as:

• What are the strengths of the book, i.e., what contributions does the book make?
• Why should a person read this book?
• What did you learn from this book?
• How might you apply the lessons of this book in your ministry context?
• Would you recommend the book to other ministers? to seminary students? to laypersons? Why, or why not?

Do not allow your response to this question to become lengthy (for this paper is not primarily an evaluation of your ministry), but do make some application.

Throughout your critique, be specific in your evaluations. Do not just tell the reader about the book; tell and show the reader with concrete examples from the book. As previously suggested, include page numbers when making specific reference to the book.

F. The length of the review should be between five and seven pages, double-spaced.

Style Issues for a Critical Book Review

The following guidelines are included to counter common style errors:

A. Utilize this suggested outline to guide your book review, but do not include the specific subheadings (“Bibliographical Entry,” “Summary of the Book,” etc.) in the essay. The brevity of the review demands a smooth flow from one section to another without including the subheadings.

B. Use first-person sparingly; however, you may use “I” when referring to your opinion of a text.

C. Avoid contractions in formal writing.

D. Use active voice as much as possible.

E. Be clear and concise. A brief review allows no room for wandering from your objective.

F. Use your spell-checker, but do not trust it. A spell-check will not catch the error in such sentences as, “The whole church voted too pass the amendment.” Use your eyes as well as your spell-checker.

G. Proofread your paper. Finish the paper, and proof it. Lay it aside, and proof it again at a later time. If you do not catch your errors, someone else will. 

• << Previous: Research Writing Assignment Rubric
• Next: Interlibrary Loan >>
• Last Updated: Sep 13, 2023 12:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.memphis.edu/keenanresearchmethods

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Work for an Overly Critical Boss

• Melody Wilding

Five strategies to consider when every task, no matter how small, seems to invite scrutiny.

Your boss points out what’s going wrong more often than what’s going right. They nitpick your work, highlighting every possibility for improvement. Meetings sometimes feel like inquisitions. While a generally difficult boss might be challenging due to their mood swings, lack of clarity, or unpredictability, a highly critical boss consistently focuses on “the gap,” not the gain. In this article, the author outlines practical strategies for handling a highly critical boss. 

Working for a highly critical boss can feel like operating under a microscope. Every task, no matter how small, seems to invite scrutiny. Meetings sometimes feel like inquisitions and you spend your days hearing more about what’s going wrong than what’s going right. 

• Melody Wilding , LMSW is an  executive coach  and author of  Trust Yourself: Stop Overthinking and Channel Your Emotions for Success at Work . Get a free copy of Chapter One here .

Partner Center

Future Shines Bright for the Class of 2024

Published date.

Story by: Sara Bock  /  [email protected] ,  Amanda Rubalcava  /  [email protected]

Photos by: Erik Jepsen

Article Content

As a stunning fireworks display lit up the night sky over RIMAC Field, visible emotions of pride, elation and awe appeared on the illuminated faces of the thousands of Class of 2024 graduates who stood below, necks craned, soaking in every single moment of this milestone celebration.  

June 15 marked an All Campus Commencement of “firsts” for UC San Diego: the first major commencement ceremony held at night, and the first time the university selected not one, but eight outstanding student speakers, each of whom delivered words of inspiration to their fellow graduates via video.

Chancellor Pradeep K. Khosla shared uplifting opening remarks, emphasizing the remarkable resilience demonstrated by this year’s graduates amid the “seismic events”—a global pandemic, devastating wars, struggles for civil rights, the impacts of climate change and more—that have defined their most formative years.

“Graduates, you have risen to meet every challenge,” Khosla said as he addressed the crowd. “Now, as you move forward in your lives and careers, keep building that capacity to bounce back, to be flexible, to adapt and to make the best of each situation. To learn continuously, and sometimes pivot and start anew.”

Climate advocate and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore delivered this year’s keynote address, which elicited a standing ovation from the crowd. Speaking to the tremendous contributions UC San Diego has made to humanity’s chances for success in resolving the climate crisis, Gore called on the university’s newly minted graduates to employ their talents and skills to help solve the climate crisis in whatever walk of life they choose to pursue.

“In this moment, we represent the brightest thinkers, innovators and dreamers UC San Diego has ever produced.” 

- Keanu Sina Nazemi '24, Student Speaker

With messages that touched on themes ranging from navigating their first year of college in an online setting to finding common ground with one another amid the current conflicts and crises in the world, this year’s eight student speakers shared their insights in an impactful video compilation. This new approach allowed Kole Gregory Kistler, Mineh Balushian Haftevani, Adamari Martinez, Qui-Shawn Tran, Keanu Sina Nazemi, Jiayi Liang, Onyekachi Samuel Ezeokeke and Bindu Priyanka Achalla to reflect on their own personal stories and acknowledge the collective journey of the Class of 2024. Many of this year's graduates missed out on a traditional high school graduation experience due to the pandemic.

“I don’t know of any university community anywhere in the world that has made greater contributions to climate science and to the awareness necessary to solve the climate crisis than UC San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.”

- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore

"The past four years have been memorable, filled with new experiences and new friends. I'm glad to be able to end it all on a good note."

- Onyekachi Samuel Ezeokeke '24, Student Speaker

"The ceremony was an amazing experience. I didn't expect the fireworks at all! It felt very rewarding—like I am coming into the world again, fresh and ready to go."

- Ruslan Bodelan '24

After the firework show, proud family members and friends reunited with their new graduates, celebrating not just the culmination of academic achievements but also the shared journey made possible through the strength of community.

Ian Lutz, who received his degree in chemical engineering, was accompanied by his family, who shook pom-poms in the air as they cheered his successes. They beamed with pride, describing their excitement level as “1,000.”

"I'm continuing here for another year at UC San Diego to get my master's degree in chemical engineering," said Lutz, expressing his gratitude for his favorite professors who mentored him and helped him reach this milestone.

Chloe Riveros, who received her degree in clinical psychology, was lifted into the air by her big brothers, who shared in the excitement of her graduation. The oldest sibling in her family and the first to graduate from college, Riveros was joined in celebration by her mother, father, grandmother, aunt and boyfriend.

“It feels awesome, and I'm just ready for the next chapter of my life,” said Riveros, who plans to move abroad to Mexico to complete clinical work. 

"Coming out of the pandemic with no high school graduation, this is a big win—for us and for her."

- Stephanie Riveros, mother of Chloe Riveros '24

Share This:

You may also like, microrobot-packed pill shows promise for treating inflammatory bowel disease in mice, another meteoric rise for uc san diego’s “fallen star” team in global programming competition, uc san diego receives $5m to support geriatrics workforce enhancement program, 30 years of critical funding for junior faculty, stay in the know.

Keep up with all the latest from UC San Diego. Subscribe to the newsletter today.

You have been successfully subscribed to the UC San Diego Today Newsletter.

Campus & Community

Arts & culture, visual storytelling.

• Media Resources & Contacts

Signup to get the latest UC San Diego newsletters delivered to your inbox.

Award-winning publication highlighting the distinction, prestige and global impact of UC San Diego.

Popular Searches: Covid-19   Ukraine   Campus & Community   Arts & Culture   Voices

• Landing home page
• Latest posts
• Recommended posts
• Find people
• Event calendar
•  Featured this week
• - Landing Support FAQ
• - Getting started
• Search for a group
• Latest groups
• Most popular groups
• Recent group discussions

Christopher Daniel

Writing a working thesis statement for my critical review outline

• Christopher Daniel @christopherda8
• Thesis Statement
• Critical Review

Following the critical reading and methodical note-taking of the article being reviewed, it is important to prepare a strong thesis statement because it will facilitate the development of the outline of the critical review. The thesis statement will be the main framework of the review and it will be used at the end of the introduction paragraph that will introduce the development of arguments to explain my take on the article.

According to Skene, “a strong thesis will acknowledge both strengths and limitations of the article” and it is formulated “based on your overall evaluation.” To formulate my thesis statement for my critical review of Fernsten and Reda’s article, Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing, what I did was to find first the article’s objective, which is articulated in the abstract. After that, I compared it with the articles’ thesis statement, arguments and evidences, and tested if the conclusion meets the objective. When I found out that the body of the article and findings do not directly address the objective, and the title of the paper, I focused on the positive aspects of the research that adds value to the research objective. Then, I formulated my working paper statement, balancing the strong and weak points of the paper.

Below is my working thesis statement:

Fernsten and Reda’s article, Helping students meet the challenges of academic writing, succeeds in sharing strategies that educators can use to help students overcome ‘negative writer identity’ through the reflective writing process, but it does not offer recommendations on how to surmount the challenges that are specific to academic writing.

Now that I have defined my working thesis statement, my next step will be to outline the development of my ideas in preparation for drafting my critical review.’

Works Cited

Fernsten, Linda A., and Mary Reda. “Helping Students Meet the Challenges of Academic Writing.”  Taylor & Francis , 4 Mar. 2011, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2010.507306?scroll=top&needAccess=true.

Skene, Allyson. “Writing a Critical Review.”  The Writing Centre , University of Toronto, utsc.utoronto.ca/twc/sites/utsc.utoronto.ca.twc/files/resource-files/CritReview

• Photo Albums
• Recommended content

All site tags

Welcome to the Landing

The Landing is a social site for Athabasca University staff, students and invited guests. It is a space where they can share, communicate and connect with anyone or everyone. 

Unless you are logged in, you will only be able to see the fraction of posts on the site that have been made public. Right now you are not logged in.

If you have an Athabasca University login ID, use your standard username and password to access this site. 

Adding comments to this site 

We welcome comments on public posts from members of the public. Please note, however, that all comments made on public posts must be moderated by their owners before they become visible on the site. The owner of the post (and no one else) has to do that.

If you want the full range of features and you have a login ID, log in using the links at the top of the page or at https://landing.athabascau.ca/login (logins are secure and encrypted)

Posts made here are the responsibility of their owners and may not reflect the views of Athabasca University.

Share this page

We block sites that track your web browsing without your permission. If a link is greyed out, click once to enable sharing, once more to share.