Content

• Steps
• Method 1 of 3: Read Actively
• Method 2 of 3: Collect Reasons
• Method 3 of 3: Write a Review
• Warnings
• Tips

A criticism or review of an article is an objective analysis of a literary or scientific text with an emphasis on the ability or inability of the author to support the main ideas with valid and relevant evidence based on facts. Often, novice reviewers simply retell the provisions of the article without actually analyzing the material. A competent critique should contain your impressions of the article, supplemented by abundant evidence to support such impressions. The critic needs to carefully and thoughtfully read the article, prepare the arguments and facts, and then write a clear and convincing text.

Steps

Method 1 of 3: Read Actively

1. 1 Read the article to grasp the key idea. On your first reading, all you need to do is understand the general statements of the author. Pay attention to the thesis.
2. 2 Reread the text and take notes. Sometimes it is helpful to mark with a red pen. On your second reading, start asking yourself the following questions:
   • What is the author's thesis or argument?
   • For what purpose did the author choose this thesis?
   • Who is the target audience of the article? Is the text written taking into account the requests of such an audience?
   • Does the author have sufficient substantiated evidence?
   • Are there gaps and weaknesses in the author's arguments?
   • Is the author misinterpreting the facts or expressing a biased opinion?
   • Did the author manage to achieve this goal?
3. 3 Come up with a legend for the annotations. Create special characters to help you distinguish between confused, important, or inconsistent parts of the text.
   • For example, underline important paragraphs, circle confusing passages and errors, or mark inconsistencies with asterisks.
   • A legend with special characters helps you quickly mark up an article. It may take a while to remember your markup types at first, but they will quickly print in memory and will greatly speed up the article.
4. 4 Make extended notes on subsequent readings. In addition to the legend with the legend, it is useful to make detailed notes of the thoughts and ideas that come to your mind while working on the article. For example, if the author's claims can be refuted by referring to a scientific study that you read earlier, then make a corresponding mark in the margins, on a piece of paper or on a computer in order to return to it later.
   • Don't be stupid and expect you to remember that thought when it's time to write your review.
   • Take the time to jot down your thoughts and observations as you read. You will be grateful to yourself for the work done when you start writing the text.
5. 5 Consider the preliminary content of a future review. Form an extended opinion about the article. Evaluate the author's arguments after two or three readings of the text. Write down your initial reaction to the material.
   • List possible sources of data for future review. Recall the materials you read or watched documentaries that will be useful for evaluating the article.

Method 2 of 3: Collect Reasons

1. 1 Rate the consistency of the author's main idea. Test this hypothesis and compare with similar examples.
   • Even if the author of the article has conducted his own research and quotes authoritative experts, analyze the feasibility and applicability of the idea in real conditions.
   • Explore the introduction and conclusion, which should be consistent and constitute compelling article supporting elements.
2. 2 Study the article for random and intentional bias. If the conclusions made are beneficial to the author of the article, then his conclusions may turn out to be subjective.
   • A biased author ignores counter-arguments, misinterprets facts in order to distort conclusions, and impose his own unfounded opinion on the reader. A supported opinion is not objectionable, but unfounded statements should always be treated with skepticism.
   • Bias can also be based on prejudice (race, ethnicity, gender, class, or political affiliation).
3. 3 Consider the author's interpretations of other texts. If the author of the article makes statements about other people's work, you need to read the original text and understand how much you share the analysis given in the article. Obviously, your full agreement on such an issue is not necessary and unlikely, but appreciate how this interpretation stands up to criticism.
   • Pay attention to the discrepancies between yours and the author's interpretation of the text. They can influence the final text of your review.
   • Get the opinion of other experts. If several unrelated experts have expressed a similar opinion about the text, then such an opinion has more weight than unsupported statements.
4. 4 Be on the lookout for unreliable facts. Is the author referring to irrelevant 50-year-old material, which has no weight in the scientific world for a long time? If the author refers to unreliable sources, he thereby reduces the level of credibility of his article.
5. 5 Pay attention to stylistic elements. The content of the article is the most important aspect for criticism, but formal and literary techniques should not be ignored if they are present in the text. Notice the questionable choice of lexical items and the tone of the author. These aspects are of particular importance when working with non-scientific articles.
   • Such nuances can expose the underlying problems of the underlying arguments. For example, if an article is written in an overly passionate and zealous style, then the author may ignore and close his eyes to conflicting facts.
   • Always find definitions for unfamiliar words. The specific meaning of a word can completely change the essence of a sentence, especially in the case of ambiguous words.Consider why the author chose this word in order to analyze his arguments more deeply.
6. 6 Evaluate research methods in scientific articles. If the peer-reviewed article contains scientific theory, then be sure to analyze the research methods used. Find answers to these questions:
   • Did the author provide a detailed description of the methods used?
   • Are there significant flaws in the study?
   • How representative is the sample size?
   • Is there a control group for comparison?
   • Are all statistical calculations correct?
   • How realistic is it to reproduce this experiment?
   • Is the experiment valuable for a specific area of ​​research?
7. 7 Dig deeper. Use all your knowledge, informed opinions and available research to agree or challenge the author's claims. Make empirical reasons for your claims.
   • No one will complain about the abundance of pertinent facts, but too many sources will become a problem if your arguments start repeating themselves. Each source should contain unique information for your review.
   • Make sure that third-party sources do not crowd out your own opinions and reasons.
8. 8 Criticism should not be overwhelmingly positive or negative. In fact, the best examples of critical analysis do not smash articles to smithereens, but rather develop and deepen the author's idea with additional evidence.
   • If you completely agree with the author, try to develop the case with additional facts or deepen the idea.
   • You can also cite the opposite facts, but still consider the author's point of view to be correct.
   • There is no need to "give indulgences" to the author because of erroneous sympathy or to be zealous in attempts to refute all of his statements. Provide details of any provable ideas that coincide or differ from the author's point of view.

Method 3 of 3: Write a Review

1. 1 Start with an introduction that sets out your point of view. The introduction should be no more than two paragraphs long and lay the foundation for your review. You can immediately note the main advantages or disadvantages of the article in question.
   • Indicate the name of the author, the title of the article, the source and date of publication, as well as the topic and thesis of the article in the first paragraphs.
   • There is no need to provide evidence in the introduction. The factual analysis will make up the bulk of your review.
   • Do not be afraid of bold statements in the introduction and state your position right away. Beating around the bush or doubting your own words can lead to the loss of your readers' trust.
2. 2 Provide evidence of your point of view in the main body of the review. Each paragraph should take a closer look at a new idea or new direction of thought.
   • Begin each paragraph of the body with a topical sentence that summarizes the content of the text that follows. That being said, you don't have to try to fit the entire paragraph into one sentence, which should be just a transition to a new idea.
   • End each paragraph of the main body with a transitional sentence that should hint (but not clearly indicate) the content of the next paragraph. For example, write: "And although Ivan Petrov reports on the extraordinary growth rate of the problem of overweight in children in Russia, in some cities there is a trend towards a decrease in the average weight." Specific examples of cities with abnormal performance should be given in the next paragraph.
3. 3 Deepen your idea towards the end of the review. Even the most compelling argument can always be extended with at least one final twist and additional subtext. Use this technique in the last paragraph of the main body of the review before conclusions, so that your argument is engraved in the memory of the reader.
   • For example, provide a counterargument that will anticipate criticism of your review and strengthen your position. Use phrases like “should be admitted,” “undoubtedly,” or “how you might object,” to set out your counter-argument.Then answer a possible question and state your weighty argument after the words "but," "however," or "nevertheless."
4. 4 State your arguments reasonably and objectively. Avoid overly zealous or overly pathetic tone that may be unpleasant to readers. Enthusiasm should be manifested in the ability to deeply explore the issue and express your point of view in an accessible way.
   • Phrases like: "This pseudo-scientific nonsense is a spit in the face of all historians of the world" - can attract attention, but readers will take more seriously the words: "The level of literacy and awareness of the author of this article does not allow taking his arguments seriously."
5. 5 In conclusion, you should summarize your thoughts and suggest possible consequences. It is important to summarize the key messages of the review briefly, and also to communicate to the reader how this may affect the state of affairs in the industry in question.
   • Can the consequences be significant, or does your review simply expose another negligent author?
   • In the final paragraph, try to make an indelible impression on the reader with convincing words to show the importance of your review: "Analyzing the reliability of the statements of such an outstanding scientist is not an easy and not pleasant task, but it is extremely important for our and future generations."

Warnings

• Do not use value judgments and comments like: "I liked the article", - or: "The text is written badly." Focus on the intrinsic value of the publication.
• No need to retell the article. It is better to write a short review than to supplement your text with a boring retelling of other people's words.

Tips

• Write a third-party review in real time unless otherwise required. Always check the style guidelines before starting work.
• Don't be afraid to make bold and confident statements.
• Always double-check your text before giving it to your supervisor, supervisor, or publisher.