how to critically review an 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

Case Studies
Free Coaching Session

A Critical Review: How to Do it Step by Step

Last Updated:

April 24, 2023

A Critical Review: How to Do it Step by Step Made Easy

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

Key Takeaways section on how to write a Critical Review

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

What to take into account when writing a critical review?

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

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

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

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

The structure of a critical review

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

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

How to prepare a critical review

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

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

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

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

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

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

People Also Like to Read...

Beginners Guide to Survey Data Analysis

Analysing the Best Marketing Campaigns: What Makes Them Work?

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.

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

Latest guides

What this practice is, why you should avoid it, and how to approach it if no other options are available

Practical advice for managers on tackling sexual harassment in the workplace

Practical advice on how to tackle sexual harassment in the workplace

Outlines the main legal requirements surrounding TUPE transfers, and the essential steps involved in managing them

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.

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

Writing Critical Reviews

Dawn Atkinson

Chapter Overview

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

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

Understand Expectations before Starting a Critical Review Assignment

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

Read a Text Closely to Prepare for a Critical Review

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 2. Prompts for evaluating an author’s intent

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

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

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

Take Advantage of Opportunities to Discuss the Text

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

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

Figure 3. How to take part in class discussions

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

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

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

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

Figure 4. Tips for emailing and meeting with an instructor

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

Understand How to Organize a Critical Review

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

The Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Conclusion

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

Plan Your Critical Review

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

Figure 5. Guidance for constructing an outline

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

Figure 6. Instructions for creating a concept map

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

Use an Appropriate Tone and Language When Writing a Critical Review

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

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

Negative Sentence Construction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue one + handout section/explanation:

Issue two + handout section/explanation:

Issue three + handout section/explanation:

Activity B: Read and Engage with a Formal Report

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

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

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

Homework: Compose a Critical Review Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share This Book

PSY290 - Research Methods

Identifying & Locating Empirical Research Articles
Survey & Test Instruments

Writing a Critical Review

Sample summaries, verbs to help you write the summary, how to read a scholarly article.

APA Citation Style Help

A critical review is an academic appraisal of an article that offers both a summary and critical comment. They are useful in evaluating the relevance of a source to your academic needs. They demonstrate that you have understood the text and that you can analyze the main arguments or findings. It is not just a summary; it is an evaluation of what the author has said on a topic. It’s critical in that you thoughtfully consider the validity and accuracy of the author’s claims and that you identify other valid points of view.

An effective critical review has three parts:

APA citation of article
Clearly summarizes the purpose for the article and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the research. (In your own words – no quotations.)
Evaluates the contribution of the article to the discipline or broad subject area and how it relates to your own research.

Steps to Write a Critical Review:

Create and APA style citation for the article you are reviewing.
Skim the text: Read the title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion.
Read the entire article in order to identify its main ideas and purpose.

Q. What were the authors investigating? What is their thesis? Q. What did the authors hope to discover?

D. Pay close attention to the methods used by the authors to collection information.

Q. What are the characteristics of the participants? (e.g.) Age/gender/ethnicity

Q. What was the procedure or experimental method/surveys used?

Q. Are their any flaws in the design of their study?

E. Review the main findings in the “Discussion” or “Conclusion” section. This will help you to evaluate the validity of their evidence, and the credibility of the authors. Q. Are their conclusions convincing? Q. Were their results significant? If so, describe how they were significant. F. Evaluate the usefulness of the text to YOU in the context of your own research.

Q. How does this article assist you in your research?

Q. How does it enhance your understanding of this issue?

Q. What gaps in your research does it fill?

Good Summary:

Hock, S., & Rochford, R. A. (2010). A letter-writing campaign: linking academic success and civic engagement. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 3 (2), 76-82.

Hock & Rochford (2010) describe how two classes of developmental writing students were engaged in a service-learning project to support the preservation of an on-campus historical site. The goal of the assignment was to help students to see how they have influence in their community by acting as engaged citizens, and to improve their scores on the ACT Writing Sample Assessment (WSA) exam. The authors report that students in developmental classes often feel disempowered, especially when English is not their first language. This assignment not only assisted them in elevating their written communication skills, but it also gave real-life significance to the assignment, and by extension made them feel like empowered members of the community. The advancement in student scores serves as evidence to support my research that when students are given assignments which permit local advocacy and active participation, their academic performance also improves.

Bad Summary:

Two ELL classes complete a service-learning project and improve their writing scores. This article was good because it provided me with lots of information I can use. The students learned a lot in their service-learning project and they passed the ACT exam.

Remember you're describing what someone else has said. Use verbal cues to make this clear to your reader. Here are some suggested verbs to use:

The article

The author

The researchers

* Adapted from: http://www.laspositascollege.edu/raw/summaries.php

<< Previous: Survey & Test Instruments
Next: APA Citation Style Help >>
Last Updated: Jun 27, 2024 3:30 PM
URL: https://paradisevalley.libguides.com/PSY290

PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
EDIT Edit this Article
EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
Browse Articles
Learn Something New
Quizzes Hot
Happiness Hub
This Or That Game
Train Your Brain
Explore More
Support wikiHow
About wikiHow
Log in / Sign up
Education and Communications
Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,123,278 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review article.

Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

What does the article set out to do?
What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
Are the central concepts clearly defined?
How adequate is the evidence?
How does the article fit into the literature and field?
Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell or Share My Info
Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

How to Write a Critical Review of an Article

Need to write a critical review but unsure of where to start? Don’t worry, it’s normal to feel stuck when writing a critical review.

So, how should you approach a critical review? Well, you need to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the article. But, more than this, you need to draw links between this article and other relevant papers. This is important if you want a first-class grade!

Critical reviews are difficult, but they can help you improve your research and selection skills. That said, let’s explore how to write a critical review of an article.

How to be ‘critical’

First and foremost, be clear on what it means to be ‘critical’. If you’ve read our guide on how to critically discuss , you’ll know that being critical isn’t just about being negative.

Being critical means weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of a particular piece of work and considering its implications and applications from various perspectives.

That said, in order to ‘be critical’ you must:

Fully immerse yourself in the work(s) you are critiquing.
Keep an open, balanced mind.

Why critically review an article?

Understanding why your tutor has set this piece of work can help you to feel more motivated to finish it. So, why would your tutor ask you to critically review an article?

Well, being able to critically appraise others’ work is considered essential to thrive as a student. This is especially true if you want to progress to master’s or PhD level study.

Writing a critical review can help you to become a more discerning researcher, because it teaches you how to appraise other people’s work.

If you can become good at critically appraising one paper, you can become good at appraising a bunch of papers. So, this means that when writing subsequent essays, you can accurately discern which research papers are worth including in your essays, and which are not.

Not to mention, an assignment like this also introduces you to the practice of peer-review; another practice that is central to UK academia.

What should I include?

The expectation of what a critical review should include will vary between subjects. As a rough guide, it should include the following:

A brief overview of the content

Generally, you should assume that your reader has not read the article, so you will need to include a brief description of its content. Remember to be brief in order to leave enough space for critique.

It’s up to you whether you write a short paragraph at the beginning of your review summarising the article, or whether you describe and critique the paper as you go along. The latter strategy can be more impressive, but it is more difficult to do.

Acknowledge (and critique) the author’s rationale

Ask yourself, why did the author(s) write this article? What problem or issue were they trying to solve? Ultimately, your review should say whether you agree that there was a problem to be solved, and whether you think this article has addressed this problem effectively.

So, for example, let’s say you need to review an article that tested whether putting stricter quotas on fishing can tackle the overfishing crisis.

First, ask yourself, is there enough evidence to confirm that we are facing an overfishing crisis? Use your response to this question to determine how ‘important’ you see this article to be. Moreover, ask yourself, were the authors right to focus on stricter quotas as a potential solution, or could/should they have focused on something else?

Remember, you are not just critiquing the paper itself but the decisions (or rationale) that led the authors to formulate this type of paper in the first place.

Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology

Most critical reviews should discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology, since the choice of methodology relates to issues like reliability and validity.

When critiquing the methodology, ask yourself why you think the author(s) chose this approach. For example, if they chose to conduct qualitative interviews rather than administer a quantitative questionnaire, why do you think they did this?

Tip: Most journal articles have a section at the end where the authors discuss the limitations of their paper (including the methodology), so this can give you some hints if you’re struggling to find any weaknesses with the methodology.

Research methods is a broad area of study, so we strongly recommend you take out a research methods textbook from your university library; this will introduce you to the basics of different research methods which will help you to critique the article confidently.

Applications and future directions

Remember we said that a critical review shouldn’t only be negative? Indeed, you should generally say positive things about the article, too.

One way to do this is to consider alternative applications of the author’s theory or argument. So, let’s say that the paper found that caffeine helps improve people’s memory. You might wonder whether caffeine could be an effective treatment for memory disorders and recommend this as a potential avenue for future research.

Remember, one of the aims of a critical review is to ‘fit it in’ to the wider literature. This will show off your ability to draw links between theories, concepts, and disciplines.

Language and tone

Depending on the type of article you are reviewing, you might also want to comment on the language skills of the authors.

Have they presented their ideas coherently? Is the argument easy to follow? If you had written the article, would you have approached it differently? Under this remit, you might also consider the quality of presentation.

Questions to ask yourself when critiquing an article

As mentioned, your tutor might have some quite unique requirements for what to include in your review. But, generally speaking, these are some good questions to get you started:

Is this article convincing?
What part of this article is most/least convincing to me?
Does this article solve a problem?
Does this article oversimplify (or exaggerate) a problem?
How would I summarise this article in one sentence? (write it down)
Does this article support or refute previous research?
Did the author(s) formulate a specific hypothesis? If so, what was it?
Were the findings largely in-line with the author(s) predictions or were they surprising?
If another researcher replicated this study, are they likely to find similar results? (e.g., if this study was done in a different country, or using a different medium, what influence might this have on the results?)
When was this article written? Is it still relevant?
What have other commentators said about this article?
Does this article feel biased or balanced?

Should I reference other papers?

Your tutor will be able to tell you whether your critical review should include other references.

However it is a good idea to include additional references because this shows you can ‘fit’ this article into the ‘bigger picture’ and draw links between different theorists’ ideas.

Moreover, when making an evaluative statement about a particular weakness within the paper, including a citation can help you to appear more authoritative.

For example, let’s say you write ‘The authors only included 12 participants so the sample size was very small; this means the findings cannot be generalised’ (Smith, 2010).

By including a reference to Smith (2010), you are showing that you have read up about sampling and the effects of using a small sample size. This demonstrates that you have thought carefully about various aspects of the article and done your own research to critique it confidently.

Tips for getting started

As with all academic papers, getting started is often the hardest part. That said, here are some tips to help you kickstart your critical review:

Fully immerse yourself in the article – try to read the paper through at least three times so you fully understand it. If you’re finding it hard to focus, see if you can find an audio version of the article. If you can’t find an official audio version, copy-and-paste the content into Word, click the ‘Review’ tab and then click ‘Read Aloud’.
Tell someone else about the article – This is a great way of testing your comprehension of the article and can help to increase your motivation for finishing the assignment.
Check out the reference list – The reference list of the article can be useful for finding relevant sources for contextualising the article, e.g., some of these references will likely refer to the opposing side of the debate (you need to engage with these too).
Make notes – Make notes as you go, and you will find it much easier to write up your critical review later.

+44 (0) 207 391 9032

Essay question words: “critically evaluate/review”

(Last updated: 13 May 2021)

Since 2006, Oxbridge Essays has been the UK’s leading paid essay-writing and dissertation service

We have helped 10,000s of undergraduate, Masters and PhD students to maximise their grades in essays, dissertations, model-exam answers, applications and other materials. If you would like a free chat about your project with one of our UK staff, then please just reach out on one of the methods below.

What does it mean to critically evaluate something or to provide a critical review? We won’t lie – these terms are complicated. But the following paragraph, and the rest of this blog post below, may help your understanding:

Typically, the word “critical” has a negative connotation. Think of words like “critique” and “criticise” and you see why. However, with essay writing, being asked to write “critically” does not necessarily mean you need to be negative. Instead, you are voicing your opinion in a logical and coherent way that is based upon evidence and evaluation.

When faced with the task to “critically evaluate” or to provide a “critical review”, it is important to remember that there is going to be some element of description. But you need to be able to build on that description to further justify your point. Let’s go through some examples.

Descriptive writing

Descriptive writing really focuses on answering the four ‘w’ questions – what, where, who, when. In descriptive writing you are going to need to focus on the following:

Who	What	Where	When
Who is the author?	What is this about?	Where does this take place?	When does this occur?
Who is affected?	What is the context?
Who is involved?	What is the main point?

As you can see from the table above, all of the ‘w’ questions are really important and are essential components to writing a good essay . The purpose of these components is to let the reader get the essential information they need to understand the main idea. Yet if you stop here, you only end up with a descriptive essay, which does not meet the requirements of criticality that are requested by the professor or TA.

Critical writing

Critical writing gives you the opportunity to go beyond the descriptive, so when you critically evaluate or critically review something, you are moving toward analysis and evaluation. This type of critical writing asks you to assess the how, why, what if, so what and what next questions. As you will begin to notice, these questions require much more explanation that the ‘w’ questions (each of which you could likely answer in 10 words or less). Let’s look at some of these questions below:

How	Why	What if	So what	What next
How does this occur?	Why did this occur?	What if we are wrong?	What does this mean?	Is it transferable?
How does it work?	Why was that done?	What if there was a problem?	Why is this significant?	What can we learn from it?
How do the parts fit into the whole?	Why this argument / solution?	What if a certain factors were changed/ altered/ removed?	Is this convincing? Why? Why not?	What needs doing now?

Managing the descriptive and critical

Anyone who has done a lot of writing or who has seen many students’ writing will tell you that there are plenty of ways to write an essay . Yet while there are many strategies, when writing in English, there are certain expectations that the reader has when working through a paragraph or larger piece of writing. Therefore, in order to satisfy the reader that you have successfully completed a critical review or evaluation, you need to make sure that the reader gets what they are expecting.

The first step is to carefully read the article/piece of work that you are going to be critically assessing. Often, students feel like, just because something has been published in an academic journal, that it is an excellent piece of writing that cannot be questioned. But this isn’t necessarily true. The author of that article made certain decisions during the research and writing processes. It is your job to evaluate and analyse what they have done and whether the author has presented any evidence that you can draw conclusions from or make links between areas of knowledge.

In an academic journal article, there are often two places where you will be able to find the easiest opportunities to critically evaluate the work: the methodology and the discussion. In the methodology, the author has made certain decisions about how they are going to answer the research question presented. They have usually (in empirical research) identified a sample, context, and certain instruments (e.g. questionnaire, interviews, observations, etc.). Perhaps one of the easiest ways you can critically evaluate this information is to determine whether or not the sample size is big enough or whether the context applies globally or only to the region where the research took place. For example, a sample of 250 undergraduate students might seem like a lot, but if they are all from a remote area of Pakistan, their situation may not be applicable to undergraduate students who are studying in the UK. Highlighting this issue is one of the more basic forms of criticality because you are applying your own judgements to a situation.

Another area where you might be able to critically evaluate a paper is in the discussion section. It’s in this section where the author expresses their point of view and how their findings relate to other aspects of research. In some articles, you might find that the author has made claims . So if we consider the same group of 250 undergraduate students in Pakistan, the author might find that of the 250 students 225 felt that learning English was important for job security in the future. Therefore, the author might claim that students should learn English if they want to secure a good job in the future. With this argument you could evaluate whether this statement is actually true. We already know that 250 is not representative globally, but we can also assume that students in a remote area of Pakistan may not have access to the same opportunities as students in Beijing. These students may come to a different conclusion about English (potentially).

The point of a critical evaluation is to demonstrate that you can think beyond what you are being told. By taking steps to question what is being written and presented to you, you may be better able to write a critical review and to reflect on how and why the author took the position they did. No research study is perfect and it is your job to determine what could have been modified or changed to fit a different situation.

Focus on directive essay words: “to what extent…”

Focus on directive essay words: “summarise”

Focus on directive essay words: “elaborate”

academic writing
critical review
to what extent
writing a good essay
writing tips

Writing Services

Essay Plans
Critical Reviews
Literature Reviews
Presentations
Dissertation Title Creation
Dissertation Proposals
Dissertation Chapters
PhD Proposals
Journal Publication
CV Writing Service
Business Proofreading Services

Editing Services

Proofreading Service
Editing Service
Academic Editing Service

Additional Services

Marking Services
Consultation Calls
Personal Statements
Tutoring Services

Our Company

Frequently Asked Questions
Become a Writer

Terms & Policies

Fair Use Policy
Policy for Students in England
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
[email protected]
Contact Form

Payment Methods

Cryptocurrency payments.

CNN values your feedback

Takeaways from biden’s critical solo news conference.

President Joe Biden on Thursday participated in the most high-stakes news conference of his political career on the sidelines of the NATO summit, aiming to convince his detractors and supporters that he is able to serve another four years in office.

Biden spoke for just under an hour, calling on 10 reporters and answering 19 questions.

Here are some takeaways from the news conference.

Performance serves as a Rorschach test for nervous Democrats

Biden’s performance likely won’t change many minds – Democrats who want Biden to step down are able to jump on a notable verbal gaffe he made at the beginning of the news conference, while Biden’s supporters will point toward the time he spent deftly answering a variety of questions on foreign policy.

Toward the beginning of the question-and-answer, Biden mistakenly referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as former President Donald Trump. It was exactly the type of slip-up the White House and Biden’s campaign presumably would have feared amid mounting questions surrounding his mental acuity.

“I wouldn’t have picked Vice President Trump to be vice president did I think she was not qualified to be president,” he said.

The president did not correct himself. He made a similar mistake earlier in the day, accidentally calling Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky “President Putin” while introducing him during a NATO event.

But Biden quickly moved on, and he spent the rest of the news conference lobbing in-depth answers about questions including Russia, Israel and his economy, offering deep answers on dealing with China and US policy around Ukraine’s fight against Russia.

Biden eagerly takes on Trump

Part of Biden’s problem at the debate last month is that he was not able to effectively counter Trump, call out the former president’s lies and distinguish himself from his predecessor while he was standing just feet away from him.

He didn’t have the same problem on Thursday, lashing out at Trump’s record and his lack of public events since the debate.

“My schedule has been full bore. I’ve done — where’s Trump been? Riding on his golf cart, filling out his scorecard before he hits the ball? I mean, look. He’s done virtually nothing,” Biden said.

But Trump hasn’t had to do anything since then. With the bulk of the national attention on Biden and his missteps, Trump and his campaign have made a strategic point of letting the president continue digging himself in a hole.

During multiple answers, Biden turned the focus onto his opponent and even took him on during the opening statement of the news conference. Much of Biden’s focus at the NATO summit was to promote how he had united the alliance after Trump did much to divide it during his term.

Biden told reporters said foreign leaders he’s met at the conference haven’t expressed concerns over his fitness for office, instead expressing concern over the prospect of a second Trump term.

“I think I can I say this without sounding too self-serving– I’ve not had any of my European allies come up to me and say, ‘Joe don’t run,’” he said. “What I hear them say is, you gotta win – you can’t have this guy come forward, he’d be a disaster, he’d be a disaster.”

Biden brushes off concerns about his campaign: ‘I’m just gonna keep moving’

Biden frequently brushed aside concerns about his candidacy by telling reporters he’s the most qualified person to run for president. On occasions, he sounded downright mad and offended by the questions over his fitness for office and the state of his campaign.

“I think I’m the most qualified person to run for president. I beat him once and I will beat him again,” Biden said, referring to Trump.

He continued, “There’s a long way to go this campaign and so I – I’m just gonna keep moving.”

The length of Biden’s resume has never been in doubt. The president has had more political experience than any one who has ever held or ran for the office. But what’s of concern to those calling for him to step aside is not his qualifications, but his ability to govern for another term.

Sixteen House Democrats have called on Biden to step aside - four of them doing so on Thursday before the news conference. But that still only represents less than 10% of the House Democratic caucus.

It’s no longer only the ‘Lord Almighty’ who could convince Biden to drop out

One week ago, Biden defiantly swatted away any notion that he would drop from the race, telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that only the “Lord Almighty” could convince him to remove himself from the ticket.

Biden was more restrained on Thursday.

He reiterated his belief that he is the best qualified to win in November – while still admitting other Democrats could defeat Trump. Biden said his advantage against those Democrats is that they won’t have to start a national campaign from scratch.

“I believe I’m the best qualified to govern. And I think I’m the best qualified to win. But there are other people could beat Trump too. But it’s awful hard to start from scratch. And you know, we talk about, you know, money raised – we’re not doing bad. We’re gonna put $220 million in the bank. We’re doing well,” he said.

Pressed on whether he might reconsider his stance if he was shown data that had Harris performing better against Trump, he offered some openness to that possibility.

“No, unless they came back and said there’s no way you can win,” Biden said. That’s a much different answer from last week, and signifies the intense conversations Biden has been having with his top aides since the ABC interview.

The president also said that delegates at the Democratic National Convention next month could vote their conscience for another candidate if they so choose. But, he reiterated his belief that such a scenario would not happen.

He acknowledged that down-ballot Democrats may continue to disavow his name at the top of the ticket as they face tough reelection battles.

“If they think that running with Biden at the top is going to hurt them, then they’re going to run away,” Biden said. “I get it.”

News conference doesn’t stop the bleeding as more Dems defect from Biden

If the news conference was aimed at keeping lawmakers from abandoning the president, it was not successful.

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes, called on Biden to step aside almost at the exact time the news conference ended. He was the first House Democrat to call on the president to leave the ticket after the news conference, but not the last.

“It is because of those traits and, and in consideration of that legacy, that I hope President Biden will step away from the presidential campaign,” he said on X.

Not long after Himes, California Democrat Rep. Scott Peters issued his own call for Biden to withdraw his candidacy. Peters is a prominent Democrat among the center-left.

“Today I ask President Biden to withdraw from the presidential campaign,” the San Diego Democrat wrote in a statement shared with CNN.

Illinois Rep. Eric Sorensen soon after became the 17th Democrat on Capitol Hill to call for the president to step aside.

“In 2020, Joe Biden ran for President with the purpose of putting country over party. Today, I am asking him to do that again,” Sorensen said in a statement on X . “I am hopeful President Biden will step aside in his campaign for President.

This story has been updated with additional developments.

Show all

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Free Cyber Services #protect2024 Secure Our World Shields Up Report A Cyber Issue

Oracle Releases Critical Patch Update Advisory for July 2024

Oracle released its quarterly Critical Patch Update Advisory for July 2024 to address vulnerabilities in multiple products. A cyber threat actor could exploit some of these vulnerabilities to take control of an affected system.

CISA encourages users and administrators to review the following Oracle Critical Patch Update Advisory and apply the necessary updates:

July 2024 Critical Patch Update Advisory

This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy.

Please share your thoughts

We recently updated our anonymous product survey ; we’d welcome your feedback.

Related Advisories

Cisco releases security updates for multiple products, cisa releases three industrial control systems advisories, ivanti releases security updates for endpoint manager, cisa adds three known exploited vulnerabilities to catalog.

Share full article

Supported by

Bollywood Stars, Prime Ministers and the Kardashians Attend the Ambani Wedding

After months of lavish prewedding festivities that have captured the attention of onlookers worldwide, Anant Ambani, the youngest son of India’s richest man, married Radhika Merchant in Mumbai.

By Sadiba Hasan

Reporting from Mumbai, India

On Friday afternoon, Sneh Zala, 24, waited for celebrities to arrive on the red carpet for the wedding ceremony of Anant Ambani, the youngest son of India’s richest man, and Radhika Merchant, a daughter of a fellow business tycoon.

The red carpet was set up in a room adorned with lanterns and red and orange garlands and floral arrangements. Mr. Zala, a photographer working for Manav Manglani , one of Bollywood’s top paparazzi, had already shot several of the couple’s prewedding functions, which began in March .

It’s not every day that Kim and Khloé Kardashian, John Cena and Boris Johnson gather in Mumbai for an Indian wedding. All four were in attendance on Friday at the Jio World Centre in traditional Indian garb.

Mr. Zala was one of about 100 media members clamoring next to the red carpet, not a common addition at most weddings. But given the sheer number of celebrities present — Bollywood superstars, several members of the Indian cricket team, former prime ministers and billionaire businessmen — and the fabulous Indian clothes on display, a runway seemed in order.

When Mr. Cena came out wearing a baby-blue sherwani, one photographer shouted, “Welcome to India.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Journal of Materials Chemistry A

Revealing the critical pore size for hydrogen storage via simultaneous enclathration and physisorption in activated carbon.

Hydrogen hydrate is regarded as an ideal hydrogen storage medium, but it faces unsolved challenges related to its extreme formation and stabilization conditions. Recent experiments have demonstrated that utilizing porous host materials can ease hydrate formation conditions and enhance stability. However, there is an urgent need to examine the nanoscopic interactions between hydrogen hydrates and solid porous materials to understand and optimize the mechanisms of hydrogen storage in the combined system. Here, the effect of pore size on hydrogen storage in hydrates confined in porous activated carbon is explored through molecular dynamics simulations, with initial validation by abinitio calculations. The results revealed a critical pore size of ∼ 2 nm, below which hydrogen hydrate decomposes. This critical size is primarily influenced by temperature and oxygen surface groups, while being largely unaffected by other properties of the activated carbon host. Furthermore, pockets of physisorbed H2 gas were found to occupy the smallest pores (around 1 nm). The results revealed a previously unreported dual-storage mechanism for H2 gas in hierarchical porous structures, where H2 can simultaneously be stored in micropores through physisorption and larger meso- and macro-pores through enclathration. Given further research and experimental verification, the hybrid mechanism could enable hydrogen storage capacities in hydrate-filled porous media to match or exceed that of pure hydrogen hydrate, while simultaneously offering milder formation and stability conditions.

This article is part of the themed collection: Journal of Materials Chemistry A HOT Papers

Supplementary files

Supplementary information PDF (2674K)
Supplementary information ZIP (3420K)

Transparent peer review

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article.

View this article’s peer review history

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

E. V. Rothmund, J. He, Z. Zhang and S. Xiao, J. Mater. Chem. A , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4TA03607G

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

IMAGES

Your Guide to Writing a Critical Essay on Trust My Paper
What Is a Critical Analysis Essay? Simple Guide With Examples
How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay: Examples & Critical Writing Guide
Reflective Essay: How to write a critical review of multiple articles
Critical review essay structure
How To Write A Critical Review

VIDEO

How to write an article review 1
Persona 5 is The Greatest Superhero Game Ever
Study Bugs think critically
Essay sites review I The best essay sites
Quick guide: How to write a critical literature review for masters students
The Most Important Day: Julypolitical commentary5dreading

COMMENTS

How to Write Critical Reviews
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 ...
Structure of a Critical Review
The length of an introduction is usually one paragraph for a journal article review and two or three paragraphs for a longer book review. Include a few opening sentences that announce the author(s) and the title, and briefly explain the topic of the text. Present the aim of the text and summarise the main finding or key argument.
Writing 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.
A Critical Review: How to Do it Step by Step
No standard length: Critical reviews can range from 500 to 800 words depending on the complexity of the work being analysed. Five-part structure: Include a title, introduction, summary, critical commentary, and conclusion in your review. Create a compelling title: A title should summarise your general opinion; consider writing it after ...
Writing Critical Reviews: A Step-by-Step Guide
the article, taking the main points of each paragraph. The point of the diagram is to. show the relationships between the main points in the article. Ev en better you might. consider doing an ...
PDF Planning and writing a critical review
A short critical review should have a brief introduction, simply providing the subject of the research and the author, and outlining the structure you will be using. The simplest way to structure a critical review is to write a paragraph or two about each section of the study in turn. Within your discussion of
PDF How to Undertake Critical Analysis
ructuring the body of your review. Firstly, you could split it into two parts with the first part providing a summary of the text and th. second part providing a critique. Alternatively, you could offer a series of combined summary and critique pa. agraphs on a point-by-point basis. Give careful consideration to the structure of your review ...
Guides: Write a Critical Review: Parts of a Critical Review
To assert the article's practical and theoretical significance. In general, the conclusion of your critical review should include. A restatement of your overall opinion. A summary of the key strengths and weaknesses of the research that support your overall opinion of the source. An evaluation of the significance or success of the research.
How to Write a Critical Review
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.
Start Here
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 ...
PDF WRITING A CRITICAL REVIEW
to understand the critical commentary that follows. The summary should be . objective and should not include any personal interpretation or discussion. In a research based article, summarise each section of the article. The purpose of the critique is to express your judgments and comments about the writing you are reviewing.
Writing Critical Reviews
Homework: Compose a Critical Review Essay. Draw upon what you did in Activity B to write an essay that critiques "The Work Colleague of the Future: A Report on the Long-Term Health of Office Workers" (Higham, 2019). This assignment asks you to closely examine the argument presented in the formal report (analyze it) and explain to readers ...
PDF Writing a Critical Review
Writing a Critical Review The advice in this brochure 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
PDF Writing a Critical Review
Writing a Critical Review You are probably familiar with the review genre such as film reviews or book reviews. A critical review is similar, as it is based on a close and detailed reading and evaluation of a text or comparison of multiple texts on the same topic. The type of texts you may be asked to review could include books, articles, reports,
How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay
How to Write a Critical Analysis Essay. Written by MasterClass. Last updated: Jun 7, 2021 • 3 min read. Critical analysis essays can be a daunting form of academic writing, but crafting a good critical analysis paper can be straightforward if you have the right approach. Critical analysis essays can be a daunting form of academic writing, but ...
PDF Writing a critical review
A critical review is a critical evaluation of a document (or book or chapter or article). It is not just a summary of the contents. You are expected to read, make judgments about the document and justify these judgments by using the criteria given to you by your lecturer or indicated in the theory. If you have been given criteria to undertake ...
LibGuides: PSY290
A critical review is an academic appraisal of an article that offers both a summary and critical comment. They are useful in evaluating the relevance of a source to your academic needs. They demonstrate that you have understood the text and that you can analyze the main arguments or findings. It is not just a summary; it is an evaluation of ...
How to Write an Article Review (With Samples)
Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest. 4. Write the introduction.
How to Write a Critical Review of an Article
Generally, you should assume that your reader has not read the article, so you will need to include a brief description of its content. Remember to be brief in order to leave enough space for critique. It's up to you whether you write a short paragraph at the beginning of your review summarising the article, or whether you describe and ...
PDF How to Write a Critical Book Review
A review is a critical essay evaluating the merits of an academic work. Its purpose is not to prove that you read the book—which is understood as a given—but to show that you can think critically about what you've read. You can see examples of reviews in virtually any historical journal, and these may help you to write your ...
Essay question words: "critically evaluate/review"
Typically, the word "critical" has a negative connotation. Think of words like "critique" and "criticise" and you see why. However, with essay writing, being asked to write "critically" does not necessarily mean you need to be negative. Instead, you are voicing your opinion in a logical and coherent way that is based upon ...
Takeaways from Biden's critical solo news conference
President Joe Biden on Thursday participated in the most high-stakes news conference of his political career on the sidelines of the NATO summit, aiming to convince his detractors and supporters ...
Oscar Wilde's Art of Disobedience
Revisiting his critical writing, we learn a valuable lesson about the critic's role in refusing bad taste and bad politics. "Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man ...
What We Know About the Assassination Attempt Against Trump
Here's what we know about the shooting. The Former President. Mr. Trump ducked quickly after the shots began and as members of the crowd began to scream.
PDF Writing a Critical Review
list of references at the end of the review. Summarising and paraphrasing for the critical review Summarising and paraphrasing are essential skills for academic writing and in particular, the critical review. To summarise means to reduce a text to its main points and its most important ideas. The length of your summary for a critical review
'BlueAnon' conspiracy theories flood social media after Trump rally
Minutes after Saturday's shooting at a Trump rally in Butler, Pa., liberals began flooding social media platforms with conspiracy theories. They claimed the blood on former president Donald ...
Oracle Releases Critical Patch Update Advisory for July 2024
Oracle released its quarterly Critical Patch Update Advisory for July 2024 to address vulnerabilities in multiple products. A cyber threat actor could exploit some of these vulnerabilities to take control of an affected system. ... CISA encourages users and administrators to review the following Oracle Critical Patch Update Advisory and apply ...
Opinion
Guest Essay. The Dismissal of the Trump Classified Documents Case Is Deeply Dangerous. July 15, 2024. ... In fact, they were critical to the court's holding (and a lot more critical than Justice ...
An Inside Look at the Star-Studded Wedding of Anant Ambani and Radhika
Inside the wedding, the reggaeton singer Luis Fonsi performed his hit song "Despacito."The Afrobeats star Rema and the Bhangra singer Sukhbir also performed. The Indian actor Ranveer Singh ...
Revealing the critical pore size for hydrogen storage via simultaneous
This critical size is primarily influenced by temperature and oxygen surface groups, while being largely unaffected by other properties of the activated carbon host. Furthermore, pockets of physisorbed H2 gas were found to occupy the smallest pores (around 1 nm). ... Transparent peer review. To support increased transparency, we offer authors ...

How to Write Critical Reviews

Understanding the Assignment

Write the introduction

Introduce your review appropriately

Explain relationships

Provide an overview

Write the body

Organize using a logical plan

Questions to keep in mind as you write

Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources

Write the conclusion

Academic and Professional Writing

Analysis Papers

Grant Proposals

Job Materials and Application Essays

Proposals and Dissertations

Research Papers

Thank-You Notes

Scientific Reports

Writing for the Web

Writing a Critical Review

Purpose of a critical review

What is meant by critical?

What is meant by evaluation or judgement?

What is meant by analysis?

Next: Structure of a critical review

A Critical Review: How to Do it Step by Step

Key Takeaways section on how to write a Critical Review

What to take into account when writing a critical review?

The structure of a critical review

How to prepare a critical review

People Also Like to Read...

Beginners Guide to Survey Data Analysis

Analysing the Best Marketing Campaigns: What Makes Them Work?

How to write a critical review

On this page

What is a journal?

Our online Community

More on this topic

Latest guides

Write a Critical Review

Ask Us: Chat, email, visit or call

More writing resources

Get assistance

Writing Critical Reviews

Share This Book

PSY290 - Research Methods

Writing a Critical Review

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Preparing to Write Your Review

Article Review 101

You Might Also Like

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

How to Write a Critical Review of an Article

How to be ‘critical’

Why critically review an article?

What should I include?

A brief overview of the content

Acknowledge (and critique) the author’s rationale

Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology

Applications and future directions

Language and tone

Questions to ask yourself when critiquing an article

Should I reference other papers?

Tips for getting started

Recent Posts

Essay question words: “critically evaluate/review”

Since 2006, Oxbridge Essays has been the UK’s leading paid essay-writing and dissertation service

Descriptive writing

Critical writing

Managing the descriptive and critical

Focus on directive essay words: “to what extent…”

Focus on directive essay words: “summarise”

Focus on directive essay words: “elaborate”

Writing Services