what does critique mean in essay

Writing well

How to write a critique

Starting well
How to write an annotated bibliography
How to write a case study response
How to write an empirical article
How to write an essay
How to write a literature review
How to write a reflective task
How to write a report
Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

Study the work under discussion.
Make notes on key parts of the work.
Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
describe the main argument or purpose of the work
explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

Definition of Critique

Examples of critique in literature, example #1: the guardian (by philip hope-wallace), example #2: the washington post (by the washington post).

This novel is very popular, and its every passage is famous, thus there is no need to retrace its details and familiar background. Fitzgerald has written it with unusual subtlety and sustained that tone in the entire novel. In the end, he says that this novel is “the most beautiful, compelling and true in all of American literature.” Then he says, “If from all of our country’s books I could have only one, The Great Gatsby , would be it.”

Example #3: Hamlet: Poem Unlimited (By Harold Bloom)

Bloom abandons the idea that Prince Hamlet ’s double shock of his father’s death and his mother’s second marriage has brought a drastic change in Hamlet. The truth, however, is that “Something in Hamlet dies before the play opens.” In fact, the theme or central idea of this play is “Hamlet’s consciousness of his own consciousness, unlimited yet at war with itself.” Thus, the play is about awakening of self-awareness, and Hamlet fights with “his desire to come to an end of playacting.”

Example #4: The Daily Telegraph (By Victoria Lambert)

Certainly, there is an enjoyment of the Georgian grace, a world where we can solve problems by a ball invitation, a new gown, and scrumptious gossip. The social life at Hampshire Vicarage, its complex social mores, obsessions with money and class, its picnics and parities, draw the readers – especially females – to a point of obsession. The critics appreciate Austen’s overall depiction of the way money rules a society. She also admits Austen’s ability to describe the human heart in detail, setting her literary pulse racing.

Function of Critique

Post navigation.

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

Chapter 8: Being Critical

8.1 What Makes a Critique a Critique?

Learning Objectives

Define what it means to critique
Explain the differences between a critique and other essay forms

This section will introduce you to another essay form instructors often ask their students to produce: the critique.

A critique is a written work critically analyzing or evaluating another piece of writing; also known as a review or critical response.

What Is a Critique?

When you see the word critique , the first thing you may think of is to criticize . In actuality, critiques do not need to look only at the negative aspects of a source; they can also focus on the positive components or even have a mix of the positive and negative elements. They are critical response papers analyzing and evaluating an original source , such as the academic journal article you are being asked to use for this assignment.

Self-Practice Exercise 8.1

H5P: Reading Critical Response

Read the following short critique, and then come up with a list of elements you believe make this a critique as opposed to an expository paper.

Vetter and Perlstein’s work on terrorism and its future is an excellent basis for evaluating views and attitudes to terrorism before the tragic events of 9/11. Written in 1991, the book provides an objective (but more theoretical) view on what terrorism is, how it can be categorized, and to what ideology it can be linked. Perspectives on Terrorism is a multifaceted review of numerous factors that impact and influence the global development of terrorism; those studying sociology or criminal justice might find ample information regarding the ideological roots and typology of terrorism as a phenomenon and as a specific type of violent ideology that has gradually turned into a dominant force of political change.

Vetter and Perlstein (1991) begin their work with the words “it has almost become pro forma for writers on terrorism to begin by pointing out how hard it is to define the term terrorism.” However, the authors do not waste their time trying to define what terrorism is; rather, they are trying to look at terrorism through the prism of its separate elements, and objectively evaluate the concept of public acceptability of terrorism as a notion. Trying to answer the two critical questions “why surrogate the war?” and “who sponsors terrorism?” Vetter and Perlstein (1991) evaluate terrorism as a unjustifiable method of violence for the sake of unachievable goals, tying the notion of terrorism to the notion of morality.

To define terrorism in its present form it is not enough to determine the roots and the consequences of particular terrorist act; nor is it enough to evaluate the roots and the social implications of particular behavioural characteristics beyond morality. On the contrary, it is essential to tie terrorism to particular political conditions, in which these terrorist acts take place. In other words, whether the specific political act is terrorist or non-terrorist depends on the thorough examination of the social factors beyond morality and law. In this context, even without an opportunity to find the most relevant definition of terrorism, the authors thoroughly analyze the most important factors and sociological perspectives of terrorism, including the notion of threat, violence, publicity, and fear.

Typology of terrorism is the integral component of our current understanding of what terrorism is, what form it may take, and how we can prepare ourselves to facing the challenges of terrorist threats. Vetter and Perlstein (1991) state that “finding similarities and differences among objects and events is the first step toward determining their composition, functions, and causes.” Trying to evaluate the usefulness of various theoretical perspectives in terrorism, the authors offer a detailed review of psychological, sociological, and political elements that form several different typologies of terrorism. For example, Vetter and Perlstein (1991) refer to the psychiatrist Frederick Hacker, who classifies terrorists into crazies, criminals, and crusaders. Later throughout the book, Vetter and Perlstein provide a detailed analysis of both the criminal and the crazy types of terrorists, paying special attention to who crusaders are and what role they play in the development and expansion of contemporary terrorist ideology. Vetter and Perlstein recognize that it is almost impossible to encounter an ideal type of terrorist, but the basic knowledge of terrorist typology may shed the light onto the motivation and psychological mechanisms that push criminals (and particularly crusaders) to committing the acts of political violence.

Perspectives on Terrorism pays special attention to the politics of terrorism, and the role, which ideology plays in the development of terrorist attitudes in society. “Violence or terrorism can be used both by those who seek to change or destroy the existing government or social order and those who seek to maintain the status quo” (Vetter & Perlstein, 1991). In other words, the authors suggest that political ideology is integrally linked to the notion of terrorism. With ideology being the central element of political change, it necessarily impacts the quality of the political authority within the state; as a result, the image of terrorism is gradually transformed into a critical triangle with political authority, power, and violence at its ends. In their book, Vetter and Perlstein (1991) use this triangle as the basis for analyzing the political assumptions, which are usually made in terms of terrorism, as well as the extent to which political authority may make violence (and as a result, terrorism) legally permissible. The long sociological theme of terrorism that is stretched from the very beginning to the very end of the book makes it particularly useful to those who seek the roots of terrorism in the distorted political ideology and blame the state as the source and the reason of terrorist violence.

Vetter, H.J. & Perlstein, G.R. (1991). Perspectives on terrorism (Contemporary issues in crime and justice). Pacific Grove, CA, USA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Taken from: http://www.custom-essays.org/examples/Perspectives_on_Terrorism_Essay_Vetter__Perlstein.html

List three to five elements you think make this a critique.

How a Critique Is Different

A critique is different from an expository essay which is, as you have learned, a discussion revolving around a topic with multiple sources to support the discussion points. As you can see in Self – Practice Exercise 8.1 , depending on the type of critique you are writing, your reference page could include one source only. However, as you may discuss topical ideas within the original source, you may also want to include secondary sources to which you can compare and contrast the original source’s ideas, but you need to always connect your discussion points back to the original source. Figure 8.1: Critiquing v ersus Other Essay Forms shows visual representations of what a critique structure could look in comparison to another essay, such as one that is expository or persuasive in purpose.

a mind map for a critique essay, image described in the following text

If you look at the mind map for the critique, you can see how all of the discussion points stem from and relate back to the original article and how all of the discussion points can be interconnected. Also, the bubble labelled Secondary Sources/Support shows you can integrate secondary sources to compare and contrast when discussing either rhetorical or idea points. In the second diagram, you can see that the supporting ideas relate to the central topic, but they are extensions of the topic each with their own supporting forms of evidence. There is less emphasis placed on synthesis of ideas, although this is something you can still do when composing this type of essay.

The Purpose of Critiquing

In a post-secondary environment, your instructors will expect you to demonstrate critical thinking skills that go beyond simply taking another person’s ideas and spitting out facts. They will want you to show your ability to assess and analyze any type of information you use; they will also want to see that you have used sources to develop ideas of your own. Critiquing, or critical analysis, demonstrates you are able to connect ideas, arrive at your own conclusions, and develop new directions for discussion. You are also showing you have strong background knowledge on the topic in order to provide feedback on another person’s discussion on the issue.

Critical analysis appears in many forms in the academic world. It is present when you select appropriate sources for your support; you practise it when you choose what information from those sources to include as your evidence; you demonstrate it when you start breaking down your topic to develop discussion points. Very importantly, you also use critical analysis or thinking when you synthesize, or blend, your ideas with those of experts. This means you go beyond a statement of facts and take a stance on a topic. In this case of a critique, you not only state your view on an idea or issue but also on one core source of information on that topic: you insert your ideas into the text’s conversation.

Elements of a Critique

Often people go online for to read reviews of services or products. They sometimes make personal choices based on those reviews, such as what movie to go to or which restaurant to eat at. When you ask for a recommendation, the person you are asking will usually give you a brief summary of the experience then break his or her opinion down into smaller aspects—good and bad. For example, imagine you want to visit a new restaurant, and you ask your friend to recommend a place. Here is a sample response:

There is an amazing Japanese restaurant called Mega Sushi at the corner of Main and 12th. The food, atmosphere, and service are great. The food is always excellent, and they have a lot of original creations or spins on traditional Japanese food, but it still tastes authentic. The ingredients are always incredibly fresh, and you never have to worry about ordering the sashimi. The decor is also very authentic and classic, and the entire place is incredibly clean.

The service is generally very good—they even bring you a free sample roll while you wait for your food—but it can be a little slow during the dinner rush because it is such a popular place. Also, the prices are a little high because an average roll costs $15, but for the amazing food you get, it is totally worth it! I love this place!

When you break this example into sections, you can see the first and second sentences give the reviewer’s general opinion of the restaurant; they also summarize the main components the reviewer will cover. The review is then broken into smaller categories or points. Notice that not all the points covered are positive: while the food and atmosphere are good, the service has both positive and negative aspects but is overall good. Also, the prices are high, but the writer states that people who eat there get good value for their money. Providing a generalized description first, the reviewer introduced the topic to the audience; she then analyzed individual aspects or components of the experience with examples to help convince the audience of her perspective. Not everyone may have the same positive experience, of course. What if it was someone’s first time at this particular restaurant, and she arrived during the dinner rush feeling very hungry and had to wait a long time for a table? Not knowing how good the food is and that it is worth the wait, she may just leave, so her general impression of the restaurant would probably not be favourable. Whether the experience would be positive or negative would depend on an individual’s personal experience and situation. The same is true for any critique. No two people will have exactly the same response to a source because of who they are, the time, and their prior experiences. When critiquing, you are responding to anything that sparks a response in you when you are reading a source. When reading your article, pay close attention to any time you have to reread a sentence or paragraph. Make note of this; at the time you may not know why you have an issue with that section. Just realize that there was a point where you had to stop and make a notation of some sort on the paper. Once you have finished reading, you can go back and think about what the issue actually was. Maybe the vocabulary was difficult; maybe the author’s grammar was awkward and confusing; maybe the ideas did not make sense how they were organized; maybe you completely disagreed with the idea the author presented. Also, maybe something you read really sparked your interest, and you have the same opinion as the author, or perhaps the vocabulary was academic but not overly challenging where you would need to use a dictionary (the guiding questions for each critique form provided below will help you with this). All of these responses are valid and are things you can write about in your critique. Any critique, no matter if it is of a book, an article, or a movie, needs to contain the following elements:

Example: In Smith’s (2009) article, he effectively argues his case for the reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada.
This would be the same as if you were writing a summary of any source you read.
You will decide on these points based on your reactions and personal preferences using the guiding questions for each of the forms below as suggestions.

Writing for Success - 1st Canadian H5P Edition Copyright © 2021 by Tara Horkoff is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

All eBooks & Audiobooks
Academic eBook Collection
Home Grown eBook Collection
Off-Campus Access
Literature Resource Center
Opposing Viewpoints
ProQuest Central
Course Guides
Citing Sources
Library Research
Websites by Topic
Book-a-Librarian
Research Tutorials
Use the Catalog
Use Databases
Use Films on Demand
Use Home Grown eBooks
Use NC LIVE
Evaluating Sources
Primary vs. Secondary
Scholarly vs. Popular
Make an Appointment
Writing Tools
Annotated Bibliographies
Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article SUMMARY
Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
Was the sample too small to generalize from?
Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

<< Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
Next: Citing Sources >>
Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Writing Critiques

Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.

Types of critique

Article or book review assignment in an academic class.

Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:

to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
to show that you understand key concepts in your field
to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work

Published book review

Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:

to describe the book’s contents
to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book

Manuscript review

Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:

to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision

Language strategies for critiquing

For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.

Offering Praise and Criticism

A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:

Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.

Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:

Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.

Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.

Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:

This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.

Offering suggestions

Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.

Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).

The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.

Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).

The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.

Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .

Make a Gift

U.S. Locations
UMGC Europe
Learn Online
Find Answers
855-655-8682
Current Students

UMGC Effective Writing Center Writing to Critique

Explore more of umgc.

Writing Resources

When you hear that your writing assignment is a “critique,” here’s what you do: instantly substitute the word “evaluation.” You see, essentially, that’s what a critique is—an e-value-ation. You rate the value of something. The value can be positive, negative or, most likely, a mix of the two.

Evaluating or critiquing is something that you do every day, whether you are aware of it or not. You do it personally—is this the right outfit for today’s video? I can’t believe my spouse did our townhouse totally in beige.

But you also do it professionally: Will my team’s plans for the new product launch work? Should I hire or promote this person? What’s the best notebook computer for the sales team? All of those contain an evaluation. As a matter of fact, your ability to think critically (in an evaluative fashion) and to offer compelling reasons and evidence for your evaluations is one of the most valued skills in the workplace and will play a crucial role in your career advancement.

Let’s take a look at the typical parts of a critique or evaluation essay and get to know what should be done in each one:

Introduction

Unlike the introduction to most of the essays you write in school, where the main purpose is simply to introduce the thesis, the introduction of a critique or evaluation essay is more complex.

First, you must introduce the author and the title of the work being critiqued. This information is often in the first sentence of a critique’s introduction, but so long as the info is at or near the top you are fine.

Second, state the author’s main point (whether in the entire work or the section of the work you are critiquing). The main point is sometimes called the “take away”—what the author wants the reader to remember or do after reading.

Third, state in 1-2 sentences your overall evaluation of the work you are critiquing. If “overall evaluation” sounds like your conclusion, bingo, you are correct. So, it may be wise to leave this portion of your intro unwritten until you have finished your first draft.

Fourth, be sure to add any background information the reader needs to place the author’s work in context. What overall topic is the work related to? Is there a controversy involved? Be sure to set the stage since your reader has not read the work.

After the introduction comes part two: the summary of the work or that part of the work under consideration. When writing this summary, you are an objective reporter providing an unbiased statement of two things:

the author’s overall point or take-away
the main supports offered for that point

And like a good reporter, your language should be untainted by your own views and certainly be written in the third person—no I’s or you’s. Your goal: After someone reads a good summary (also called an abstract), that reader should know the author’s thesis and main points without detecting any of your opinion.

Part three is the evaluation. This is where you transition from being a reporter to being a judge. Just like a judge at a gymnastics meet, you weigh the strong points and the weak points of the performance, then provide an overall rating. Also, just like at a gymnastics meet, you have a scorecard of criteria that you use to make this judgment, this rating. However, instead of mount and dismount, flexibility and strength, your criteria are more likely to be items like this:

Accuracy of information
Presence or lack of definition of key terms
Hidden assumptions
Clarity of language
Fairness—the author weighed both sides without undue bias
Logic and Organization—do the main points link together in a meaningful way and add up to a valid argument? Are there gaps in the argument?
Fallacies—these refer to such argument no-no’s as name calling, hasty generalization, oversimplification, substituting emotional language for fact or logic, or the black/white or either/or fallacy, the bandwagon appeal (everybody is doing it, so it must be OK), and so on.

Part four is the response. Now it’s your turn. You are no longer a reporter or a judge. You are you, providing your personal take on this work. How do you do that? Simple: Ask yourself questions like these:

What do I agree and disagree with?
What does the author get right, what does she/he get wrong, in my opinion?
What ultimate merit does this work have—some, a little, none?
Would I recommend this work as a source on this topic or should it be avoided—why or why not?

The response section is also where you would use outside sources to back up your opinion of this work and its merits or demerits. In that sense, your response section is like a miniature essay, where your thesis is your opinion of the work and your main points support your opinion.

Part five is the wrap up. It doesn’t have to be long. Your main tasks are to:

Remind your audience of the overall importance of the topic—bring the reader back to ground zero, the topic at hand.
Bring together your assessment or rating of the work, together with your personal response to it. In doing so, focus on overall strengths and weaknesses. Then use both to state what you believe is the ultimate success of the work .

So there you are—the mysteries of the “critique” demystified. You simply

Introduce the work
Summarize the work
Rate the work based on a set of clear criteria
Respond to the work in a personal way
Wrap it up by talking about overall success failure of the work and the importance of the topic it tries to address.

Do those things—in that order—and you will end up with a critique that is sound and meaningful.

Our helpful admissions advisors can help you choose an academic program to fit your career goals, estimate your transfer credits, and develop a plan for your education costs that fits your budget. If you’re a current UMGC student, please visit the Help Center .

Personal Information

Contact information, additional information.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that you intend to sign this form electronically and that your electronic signature is the equivalent of a handwritten signature, with all the same legal and binding effect. You are giving your express written consent without obligation for UMGC to contact you regarding our educational programs and services using e-mail, phone, or text, including automated technology for calls and/or texts to the mobile number(s) provided. For more details, including how to opt out, read our privacy policy or contact an admissions advisor .

Please wait, your form is being submitted.

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our Privacy Policy .

Improve your writing in one of the largest and most successful writing groups online

Join our writing group!

Critique vs. Criticism: How to Write a Good Critique, with Examples

by Daniel Rodrigues-Martin

Understanding critique vs. criticism

We all assign merit to the information we experience daily. We “judge” what we hear on the news. We “evaluate” a university lecture. We “like” or “dislike” a movie, a meal, a photo, a story. We’re all critics.

Some writer-readers struggle with this point, especially if they are young to writing and editing. Sitting in a judgment of another writer’s work often feels distasteful, and doing so may conjure negative memories of when we were misunderstood or dismissed by others.

Conversely, we might be willing to share our opinions with other writers while struggling with our competence. We can’t seem to say anything constructive. If we’re critiquing on Scribophile, we may feel that we are wasting one of the author’s coveted “spotlight” critiques.

Having used Scribophile on-and-off since 2009, I’ve seen countless readers qualify their commentary on my own work (“I don’t read your genre,” “I haven’t read your previous chapters,” “I’m not good with grammar,” etc.) and I’ve seen even more cry woe on the forums about how they can’t critique because they’re not experienced enough, not educated enough, or not talented enough. Others decry the very sort of criticism writers’ groups and workshop sites like Scribophile foster, suggesting that the perfunctory nature of such criticism is ultimately more harmful than helpful.

Scribophile as a community thrives on the principle of serious commitment to serious writing, and the foundation of that commitment is reading and responding to others’ work. If you want to explore some elements helpful to improving your critiquing skills, I invite you to get yourself some hot caffeine, strap on your thinking cap, and read on.

How to write a great critique in 3 steps

Listed here are some ideas I’ve found helpful for approaching others’ work; these tips are about your mindset as a critic. These ideas are by no means exhaustive. The best teacher is experience, and I encourage all writers to reflect on the ways in which they approach others’ work as well as how they can best contribute to the growth of others on and off of Scribophile.

1. If you’re genuine, you’ll be constructive

Being constructive means coming to the critique with the ultimate goal of helping the writer improve. It means always criticizing with good intentions for the writer. It does not equate to coddling—being so nice you’ll never say a hard thing—nor does it equate to browbeating—being so hard you’ll never say a nice thing.

Being dishonest or refusing to offer valid criticism where you’re able is a disservice to the writer. Don’t shy away from honesty. Few things are more constructive than hard truths delivered by critics who genuinely want to help and who tailor their criticism with an attitude of genuine interest.

As you interact with works on Scribophile or elsewhere, remember to always approach the task of criticism with a desire to be genuinely helpful. If your criticism is built on this foundation, your commentary will be constructive regardless of your competence and experience.

2. No jerks

As for literary criticism in general: I have long felt that any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel or a play or a poem is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae or a banana split. —Kurt Vonnegut

Few things will more quickly deflate a writer than unnecessarily harsh criticism. Being honest and being brutal are not the same thing. Critics must learn to express hard truths without coddling and without being jerks.

Even rude people can be good writers with valuable insights into the craft. The problem is that if you express valid insights obnoxiously, the author won’t care. In order for people to listen, they must feel that the person criticizing them has their best interest in mind, and being harsh doesn’t communicate your best interest.

In my earliest days writing, I received some negative criticism from a writer who decided to berate me for penning a bad phrase rather than explaining to me why the phrase didn’t work. Because he was rude, I insulated myself to his criticism. Years later, I reviewed the work and realized his criticism was valid. The problem was not the content of his criticism, but its malicious delivery. Had he come to my work with the desire to be genuinely helpful, I would have listened to what he had to say, and I might even have gained some enlightenment during a formative time in my writing career. The critic did me doubly wrong not only by being obnoxious, but by retarding my growth as a writer.

Unnecessarily harsh criticism is a sign of literary and personal immaturity. Don’t be a jerk.

3. Don’t be too timid

Flattering friends corrupt. —St. Augustine

Every writer likes to be praised, especially by those not obligated to praise them due to marital status or having given birth to them. But depthless praise can be just as damaging as heartless criticism. The reason for this is that it offers no real commentary on the work.

Refusing to offer criticism where it’s needed is one of the greatest disservices you as a critic can do for other writers. Some critics may fret that their criticism might be too discouraging if fully disclosed. Critics must contend with the reality that writing is art, people have opinions about art, and those opinions are not always going to be eruptions of praise. There is no safer environment to honestly and succinctly point out problem areas in a piece of writing than a forum designed for that very purpose.

None of this is to say that you shouldn’t commend a piece of work if it truly is fantastic or that you should not highlight the gems within a work. Again: constructive criticism is honest criticism. If a work is so well-crafted in your eyes that nothing worse than grammatical hiccups are present, tell the writer. They deserve to know they’ve done a fine job. Sometimes people genuinely deserve a “well done.” Don’t skimp on encouragement where it can be authentically offered. Even if a piece is messy, do your best to find a few strong points to highlight. It will express your best interest—especially if you had a lot of hard things to say.

The difference between a critique vs. criticism is whether it’s constructive

Be constructive , meaning, have the best intentions for helping the writer. This may mean telling hard truths. If hard truths must be told, do so respectfully. If praise is deserved, offer it. Highlight the strong points of a piece—even if they are far outweighed by the negative points. Be genuine in your motivations, and genuine action will follow.

Considering authorial intent while critique writing

This section concerns authorial intent and has as its purpose the critic’s growth as an interpreter of that intent. This section is not so much about judging an author’s intent as it’s about being aware of that intent and factoring that awareness into your commentary.

1. Context is king

It is important to appreciate the amount of subjectivity and pre-understanding all readers and listeners bring to the process of interpreting acts of human communication. But unless a speaker or author can retain the right to correct someone’s interpretation by saying ‘but that’s not what I meant’ or ‘that’s not even consistent with what I meant,’ all human communication will quickly break down. —Craig L. Blomberg

While interpreters are always within their rights to read whatever they want however they want to, what they are not at liberty to decide is authorial intent —what the author desired the audience to receive from their work.

As a reader and a critic, you must be careful to understand an author’s work on their own terms while also interpreting those words. There is a substantial difference between, “This is how I’m hearing what you’re saying,” and, “This is what I say your words mean.” Don’t presume to tell an author what their work is supposed to mean, but do tell them how you’re interpreting what they’ve written.

A work-in-progress can suffer from a variety of ailments. Contextual questions are not cut-and-dry like questions of syntax, grammar, or, to a degree, plotting. Questions of context have to do with the interaction of author intent and reader interpretation. They’re murky waters to navigate because you as the reader have to exercise a bit of telepathy; you have to try and get inside the author’s head, ultimately “What is the author trying to convey with this sentence, this piece? Who is this piece for, and will it successfully communicate with that target audience? Is it clear that there is a target audience?”

Some authors are great at genre pieces; they know all the chords to strike, they know what the tone of the piece should be, the kinds of characters who should appear. Other authors can completely muck it up. They’ll write a romance piece that reads like a technical manual or a flowery memoir with a tangle of dead-ending tangents. It’s not always easy and natural for new critics to explain why something does or doesn’t work, but innately, we know. When those moments come up, let the author know.

2. The unintended/unspoken

Asking the question, “Is that really what you meant?” isn’t always bad. All of us have been misunderstood. Sometimes the results are humorous, but other times, we’re grateful for the opportunity to correct misunderstandings.

If in your criticism you find yourself questioning the use of a word or phrase, or even of a character, idea, or plot point, it’s advisable to bring such questions to the writer’s attention. It may just be you, but it may not just be you. Unless the writer has a philosophical axe to grind, they probably mean to communicate clearly, and it should at least be made known that they may have botched it up.

Conversely, there are instances where things left unwritten speak volumes. Perhaps a character “falls off the radar” in mid-scene, and it leaves you scratching your head? It may be appropriate to point out confusing instances of the unwritten for the author’s consideration.

Because my own novel employs many neologisms, critics jumping in mid-story often highlight those neologisms to make sure I’m using them as intended. While it can get tedious to say to myself, “Yes, that is what it means,” I am always thankful for keen eyes. This is the kind of sharp, considerate criticism each of us should aim for and be thankful for if we receive it.

3. Accounting for genre and intended audience

A genre is “A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content.” When reading an author’s work, it’s crucial to take into account its genre and intended audience. If you’re even-handed in your critiquing, you’ll at some point be reading a story in a genre you might not otherwise touch, and while you might wish Twilight had been a one-off rather than a worldwide phenomenon, it’s inappropriate to harshly judge an author’s work simply because you don’t like their sort of story.

Consider the question of author intent and how that intent will resonate with an intended (or unintended!) audience. Sometimes, you must ignore whether or not a story resonates with you personally. Instead, ask yourself if it would resonate with your vampire-novel-loving daughter. Are the story, plot devices, characters, and verbiage appropriate for the intended audience? If yes, why or why not? If no, why or why not? Your personal tastes should not dictate the quality of your criticism. Train yourself to offer valuable insight even on writing you’d never pay money to read.

Remember these principles when reading work outside your sphere of interest. Being constructive doesn’t mean you have to love or even like the work. If something is written well, it’s written well—prejudices aside. If you’re truly unable to be objective, you would do the writer a better service by moving on.

4. Don’t pretend to be a non-writer

A film director watches other films differently than a moviegoer. A chef tastes a meal differently than the average person. As a writer, you necessarily see stories differently than non-writers. That’s not a bad thing.

We can be helpful to other writers by sharing our gut reactions no differently than an unversed beta reader. On the other hand, writers should be able to explain with more clarity than the average person why something does or doesn’t work in a story. A writer’s insight is of a different quality than a non-initiate’s insight. Both are needed for success, because if a writer one day moves on to pitch their work to those in the literary establishment, that work will not be judged by average readers until after it has survived the professional gauntlet.

All readers have the ability to share their gut reactions, but not all readers can slip on their “writer glasses” and offer critique on that level. Good critiques provide both types of insight, so as a fellow writer, bring your full experience to bear in helping others embarking on the same journey.

Understanding intent is part of a good critique

As best as you’re able, judge an author’s work on the basis of their intent—this includes noting instances of the unintended! In consideration of genre, judge the work not on the basis of your interest in the genre, but on the author’s skill at writing a piece that strikes the proper chords within the genre they’ve chosen. It’s not possible for you to read as a reader only, so don’t pretend to be something you’re not.

What makes a good critique?

A good writer may come out of any intellectual discipline at all. Every art and science gives the writer its own special ways of seeing, gives him experience with interesting people, and can provide him with means of making a living… It is not necessary—or perhaps even advisable—that the young writer major in literature. —John Gardner

Contrary to the belief of a lot of new writers, learning to write and critique doesn’t require sixty-four credits of college English or an MFA. Plenty of writers and editors don’t hold English or Creative Writing degrees, and while I in no way wish to discourage those who choose to improve their writing and reviewing by taking the high road of formal education, neither do I wish to discourage the 98% of you reading this who haven’t and won’t be able to front the money and time for such an education.

The ability to forge valid criticism is an applied skill learned through a combination of technical knowledge and experience. We’re fortunate to live in an age where vast quantities of technical information are available at our fingertips. Contemporary writers are able to write informed literature like never before. So, too, are critics able to fact-check writers like never before.

Just as you’re willing to fact-check history or science before you include something in your story, it doesn’t hurt to do that for those you critique. Granted, they should do that themselves, but maybe they’re writing a genre you write, or maybe they’re writing about your field of work or interest? Being educated or experienced in any field will enrich not only your writing, but your critiquing. If you’re a fry cook, your ability to write or critique a scene in a modern commercial kitchen is better than that of someone who hasn’t had that experience. Because you know what it’s like to really work in a kitchen, you can speak to the authenticity of any such scene, and you can speak to the authenticity of the kinds of people who work in commercial kitchens. Your grammar may not be the best, but you still have something valuable to contribute.

Great writers are keen observers of life, and their writing both informs and is by informed by life. Bring the authenticity of your life to your writing and your criticism. You have perspectives, knowledge, and experiences others don’t. As you read and respond to authors, employ the skills and knowledge you already possess. Put your formal and informal education and your life experience to work. This is what it means to “write what you know” and, in our case, “critique what you know.”

Immerse yourself in all sorts of stories to get better at critiquing

One of the cardinal “writing for dummies” rules is that if you want to write well, you need to read a lot. I don’t doubt the validity of this statement, but books are only one medium of storytelling among many. My contention is that by immersing yourself in movies, television, and other storytelling mediums, you can learn about dialogue, plot, characterization, and all the other aspects of “storytelling” that appear no matter what medium you choose.

If you want to understand what makes a story great, seek out great stories. Immerse yourself in them. Though you may not be able to verbalize it, your innate understanding of what makes a narrative work will grow. This will improve both your writing and your critiquing.

Steal critiquing techniques from smart people–yourself included

Consider the critiques that have been most helpful to you. Why did they work? Reread them if you must. Then find a way to adapt the good things from those critiques into your own criticism.

Consider the critiques you’ve shared that have been helpful to others. What stood out to the author? You may even consider asking an author for feedback on your critique. Ask how you could have been more helpful.

Critiquing is a skill you can improve over time just like writing itself. But like writing, it takes practice and discipline. Make it easier on yourself by nurturing what works.

A reading list to improving your critique writing skills

There are many solid books on writing that will not only improve your writing, but your critical reading skills. Rather than provide you a hundred sources, here are a few I’ve been able to get my claws on, have dug into, and can personally vouch for:

Good Prose , by Tracy Kidder & Richard Todd. The writer-editor combo of The Atlantic share their wisdom through a tightly-edited, insightful, and entertaining survey of nonfiction writing that has plenty of benefit for writers of all stripes. The book’s section on “proportion and order” in narrative has revolutionized my own thinking about how stories should be structured.

How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy , by Orson Scott Card. A good resource if you write these genres, Card provides practical advice on publishing, agents, etc., in addition to familiarizing the reader with dos and don’ts for writing Sci-Fi/Fantasy, including some technical questions. The book’s a bit dated by now—especially the parts about the publishing world—but there are some nuggets of timeless truth within.

On Becoming a Novelist , by John Gardner. Despite the Modernistic tendency of abusing the pronoun “he,” this may be the most formative thing I’ve read about novel writing. It’s slim, readable, practical, and comprehensive.

On Writing , by Stephen King. Something of an autobiography penned by one of the most successful authors of all time, this book is snappy, humorous, entertaining, and more than a little instructive for anyone looking to write and read better. King reminds his fellow writers that “Life isn’t a support system for art; it’s the other way around.”

Story , by Robert McKee. Considered by many to be the “screenwriter’s bible,” Story belongs in the library of every serious writer whether or not they ever aspire to the silver screen. McKee is a master of properly balancing a plot to satisfy an audience, and all writers should glean from his wisdom.

The Modern Library Writer’s Workshop , by Stephen Koch. Koch flexes his student’s muscles by providing copious citations from the masters who have graced the past few centuries of literature. The author fades into the background at points while readers are treated to the musings and experiences of Dostoevsky, Flannery O’Connor, Hemingway, and others.

The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers , by Christopher Vogler. Vogler is one of the most proficient living writers of the entertainment industry. Working primarily from the theses of the late cultural anthropologist, Joseph Campbell, Vogler illustrates the plot devices and character tropes that underlie the world’s oldest stories. Recommended for new writers of the speculative fiction genres and those who wish to write epics.

The value of criticism and critiquing

The arts too can be taught, up to a point; but except for certain matters of technique, one does not learn the arts, one simply catches on. —John Gardner

The value of criticism is twofold: First and most obviously, it helps others. Second, and maybe not as apparent if you’re new to critiquing: It improves your own writing.

As you examine the work of others, you’ll be able to see what works and what doesn’t work. You will begin to notice patterns as you edit your own writing, and you’ll begin to sift out the problem areas. It’s difficult to judge your own work objectively. Doing it for others helps you get a clear head and recognize the ways in which you do the very things you criticize others for doing.

This article hasn’t had as a goal the outlining of a criticism “process.” The reason for this is that I could no more outline a criticism process than I could outline a fiction writing process. There is no single monolithic “right way to do it” that will unequivocally work for everyone. Herein are general guidelines and considerations that I’ve found helpful over the years and that others have appreciated. If you write critiques constructively, taking consideration of what the author is trying to do, and if you do so authentically, drawing on your experiences and knowledge, you’re on the right track for writing great critiques. The details of how exactly you accomplish that will become clearer to you as you engage in criticism. As in any discipline: Seek feedback and keep going.

Appendix I: “Line edits” and “critiques”

“Line edits” and “critiques” are not the same thing. These two types of reader responses address different issues, and in order to ensure that you receive the kind of criticism you’re seeking, you need to know what you’re displaying.

A “line edit” is a thorough, line-by-line examination of a manuscript. A good line edit requires an editor with a keen eye for detail and a working knowledge of contemporary grammar, syntax, and idiomatic English. The purpose of a line edit is to make a manuscript as readable as possible by removing technical errors. Typically, works that receive line edits receive them because they’re in need of them.

A “critique” is an in-depth review, touching on characterization, plot, theme, scene structure, poetry of language, and other related factors. Notice how I didn’t list anything about spelling or proper comma usage? It’s because that’s not critiquing; that’s editing. Typically, works that receive criticism as described here are free or mostly free of errors that distract readers from the story.

No one is perfect, and one of the best tools at our disposal on Scribophile is the inline critique option. Having never read nor submitted a flawless piece of writing for review, I can tell you that no one should be ashamed to receive a line edit. There are many sharp eyes and sharp minds browsing Scribophile, and even the best writer’s eyes glaze over after so many hours of staring at a white screen.

That said, part of what is absolutely necessary to receive genuine criticism as described above is a readable text. An unreadable text has never, in my experience, provided foundation for a fantastic piece of writing. Messy prose screams “messy story.” If you want criticism of story, your text must be as clean as possible.

If you’re willing to admit that your mastery of the technicalities of writing is not the sharpest, by all means, employ the knowledge and expertise of those on this site who do; it’s a wonderful resource. Readers can’t truly resonate with your story until you weave a piece of art that makes them forget they’re experiencing a piece of art. When you’re able to achieve this, you’ve removed the hurdles preventing your reader from authentically engaging with the story you’ve created. It’s at this stage in your writing that you can consistently receive deep criticism.

This is, of course, not to say that imperfect prose can’t be critiqued. Part of writing great critiques is learning to spot the gems in the story and encouraging the writer to press onward in spite of any shortcomings. If you’re honest and genuine, this won’t be a problem.

If all else fails, list at the top of your submitted piece the sort of critique you’re seeking by highlighting specific questions. “I’d love to know how you reacted when X happened,” for example. This will encourage readers to engage with the sorts of questions you’re asking.

Appendix II: The Benefits and Limits of Critique Groups

If you understand how to best leverage critique groups, they will be helpful and formative to your growth. As written above, critiquing others helps you grow; but there is more. The benefits of critique groups are threefold.

First, broad exposure. Want to know what people outside of your social circle will think of your work? A critique group will expose your work to people of different backgrounds. You can learn how a teen writer with big dreams or a Native American ex-botanist writing a memoir in retirement reacts to your story. This is the type of demographic insight you’d pay good money for when it comes time to sell your book. Even in small chunks, it’s valuable to know how different people experience your work.

Second, many eyes forge sharper prose. If three different people all trip over the same thing in your text, the problem is most likely not those three people, but your text. Especially if your text is hot off the press, you can catch errors early, and writers tend to be sharper with these sorts of things than the general population. Go look up the cost of a professional manuscript editor in your area, and you’ll be glad for many eyes combing over your writing.

Third, and most importantly: networking. The goal of sites like Scribophile and in-person critique groups should be to develop a network of people who will read the entirety of your work. Don’t get angry at forks for not being spoons—a reader jumping in mid-story will never give you the same level of commentary as someone who’s been reading since chapter one. If you’re ready for that level of reading, you need others to agree to read the book from start to finish. Use critique groups and sites like Scribophile to build relationships. Be attentive to others and share good critiques with them. As your relationships deepen, you’ll eventually find yourself with a list of contacts to trade with. But this requires you to be the kind of person people want reading their work. Behave professionally, and over time, you’ll find yourself surrounded by likeminded individuals who will give you the kind of meaty, informed commentary you need. The rule of thumb with critique groups and workshop websites is: You get out what you put in to them.

Appendix III: Still confused?

If you have questions I have failed to address in this article, I encourage you to contact me privately here on Scribophile or to reach out on social media. I’m happy to help.

Get feedback on your writing today!

Scribophile is a community of hundreds of thousands of writers from all over the world. Meet beta readers, get feedback on your writing, and become a better writer!

Join now for free

How to Become a Beta Reader

How to Pitch a Book Idea to a Literary Agent

What Is a Beta Reader? (And Why You Need One!)

How to Get an ISBN

How to Find a Literary Agent

Novel Versus Book: What’s the Difference?

The Classroom | Empowering Students in Their College Journey

How to Write a Good Critique Essay

How to Write a Close Reading Essay

The word "criticize," has by definition and perception largely negative connotations attached. Students may dread having their creative writing critiqued in a group setting. However, a fair assessment of any text, object, place or experience deeply analyzes all component parts and then renders judgment. When writing a critique essay, your readers need to understand how and why you arrived at your conclusion. A thorough and analytic critique provides them with an understanding of the critic’s values.

Describe Author and Work

Describe the work and its creator in the first paragraph. Do not assume that readers know the work or author prior to reading the critique. It is necessary to place the work in context so the reader has a sense of what is happening. Determine if the text is a first outing for the author or the latest in a long series. Does the author have a reputation or expertise in a certain field? Is the work controversial or well-known or little-known, and why? What is the intended audience for this work? By answering these questions, the reader has a stronger base of information to add clarity to the rest of the critique.

Write an accurate summary of the work’s main ideas in the second paragraph. Do not mingle your own evaluation with this summary. Instead, use the summary to explain the most important ideas the author tried to convey in the entire work and any other literary details that might guide or enlighten your reader.

In this section, critique the author’s presentation. Ask yourself a series of questions as you write the critique. Did the author present accurate and relevant data in a logical manner? Did the author clearly define important terms or jargon? Did the author offer sound interpretations? Focus in this paragraph, on whether the author achieved his or her purpose for creating the piece of writing.

State Your Opinion

Here, you will state both your own agreements and disagreements with the author. Develop your ideas by explaining why you agree and disagree with the author’s ideas. To further support your critique, cite other critics who support your interpretation.

In the last paragraphs, compose the conclusion that restates the main agreements and objections to the work. This conclusion is often the shortest paragraph in the critique but may also be the most important as it sums up the entire critique. In the closing, do not mention any new idea that does not already appear in the body paragraphs. The final paragraph is included to give an overview of the entire essay by restating its main ideas.

How to Write an Introduction to an Analytical Essay

How to Write Prose Commentary

Guidelines for a Reflection & Summary Paper

How to Write a Summary of an Autobiography

How to Write a Dissertation Summary

How to Construct a Rationale Statement

How to Write a Thesis Statement for "Robinson Crusoe"

How to Write an Eighth Grade Book Report

Goshen College: Essay Critique Guidelines
Massey University: Article Critique
Writing Forward: How to Critique Other Writers' Works
College Essay Tips: How To Write A Critique Essay for College
Document in instructor-recommended citation style all quotes, paraphrases and summaries.
Write a detailed summary of the text before writing the critique.

Patricia Hunt first found her voice as a fiction and nonfiction writer in 1974. An English teacher for over 27 years, Hunt's works have appeared in "The Alaska Quarterly Review," "The New Southern Literary Messenger" and "San Jose Studies." She has a Master of Fine Arts in creative writing from American University and a doctorate in studies of America from the University of Maryland.

Writing a Critique Paper: Seven Easy Steps

Were you assigned or asked by your professor to write a critique paper? It’s easy to write one. Just follow the following four steps in writing a critique paper and three steps in presenting it, then you’re ready to go.

One of the students’ requirements I specified in the course module is a critique paper. Just so everyone benefits from the guide I prepared for that class, I share it here.

To standardize the format they use in writing a critique paper, I came up with the following steps to make their submissions worthwhile.

Step-by-step procedure in writing a critique paper.

I quickly wrote this simple guide on writing a critique paper to help you evaluate any composition you want to write about. It could be a book, a scientific article, a gray paper, or whatever your professor assigns. I integrated the essence of the approach in this article.

The critique paper essentially comprises two major parts, namely the:

1) Procedure in Writing a Critique Paper, and the

First, you will need to know the procedure that will guide you in evaluating a paper. Second, the format of the critique paper refers to how you present it so that it becomes logical and scholarly in tone.

The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper

Here are the four steps in writing a critique paper:

To write a good critique paper, it pays to adhere to a smooth flow of thought in your evaluation of the piece. You will need to introduce the topic, analyze, interpret, then conclude it.

Introduce the Discussion Topic

Introduce the topic of the critique paper. To capture the author’s idea, you may apply the 5Ws and 1H approach in writing your technical report.

That means, when you write your critique paper, you should be able to answer the Why , When , Where , What , Who , and How questions. Using this approach prevents missing out on the essential details. If you can write a critique paper that adheres to this approach, that would be excellent.

Here’s a simplified example to illustrate the technique:

The news article by John Doe was a narrative about a bank robbery. Accordingly, a masked man (Who) robbed a bank (What) the other day (When) next to a police station (Where) . He did so in broad daylight (How) . He used a bicycle to escape from the scene of the crime (How) . In his haste, he bumped into a post. His mask fell off; thus, everyone saw his face, allowing witnesses to describe him. As a result, he had difficulty escaping the police, who eventually retrieved his loot and put him in jail because of his wrongdoing (Why) .

Hence, you give details about the topic, in this case, a bank robbery. Briefly describe what you want to tell your audience. State the overall purpose of writing the piece and its intention.

Analyze means to break down the abstract ideas presented into manageable bits.

What are the main points of the composition? How was it structured? Did the view expressed by the author allow you, as the reader, to understand?

If you want to split a log, what would you do? Do you use an ax, a chainsaw, or perhaps a knife? The last one is out of the question. It’s inappropriate.

Now, you are ready to interpret the article, book, or any composition once the requisites of analysis are in place.

Visualize the event in your mind and interpret the behavior of actors in the bank robbery incident. You have several actors in that bank heist: the robber, the police, and the witnesses of the crime.

Imagine, his mode of escape is a bicycle. What got into him? Maybe he did not plan the robbery at all. Besides, there was no mention that the robber used a gun in the heist.

If we examine the police’s response, they were relatively quick. Right after the robber escaped the crime scene, they appeared to remedy the situation. The robber did not put up a fight.

If we look at the witnesses’ behavior, we can discern that perhaps they willingly informed the police of the bank robber’s details. They were not afraid. And that’s because the robber appears to be unarmed. But there was no specific mention of it.

Assess or Evaluate

Finally, judge whether the article was a worthwhile account after all. Did it meet expectations? Was it able to convey the information most efficiently? Or are there loopholes or flaws that should have been mentioned?

Format of Presenting the Critique Paper

The logical format in writing a critique paper comprises at least three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. This approach is systematic and achieves a good flow that readers can follow.

Introduction

In any scientific article, there is always a thesis that guides the write-up. A thesis is a statement that expresses what the author believes in and tries to test in his study. The investigation or research converges (ideally) to this central theme as the author’s argument.

If you need more information about this, please refer to my previous post titled “ How to Write a Thesis .”

How is the introduction of a critique paper structured? It follows the general guidelines of writing from a broad perspective to more specific concerns or details. See how it’s written here: Writing a Thesis Introduction: from General to Specific .

This section is similar to the results and discussion portion of a scientific paper. It describes the outcome of your analysis and interpretation.

Besides, who wants to adopt the perspective of an author who has not even got hold of a mobile phone if your paper is about using mobile phones to facilitate learning during the pandemic caused by COVID-19 ? Find a more recent one that will help you understand the situation.

Objectively examine the major points presented by the author by giving details about the work. How does the author present or express the idea or concept? Is he (or she) convincing the way he/she presents his/her paper’s thesis?

Therefore, always find evidence to support your position. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author. Point out the discrepancies or strengths of the paper.

If you have read up to this point, then thank you for reading my musings. I hope that helped you clarify the steps in writing a critique paper. A well-written critique paper depends on your writing style.

Read More : How to Write an Article with AI: A Guide to Using AI for Article Creation and Refinement

Final Tip : Find a paper that is easy for you to understand. In that way, you can clearly express your thoughts. Write a critique paper that rocks!

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

How to Write a Critique Paper: Format, Tips, & Critique Essay Examples

A critique paper is an academic writing genre that summarizes and gives a critical evaluation of a concept or work. Or, to put it simply, it is no more than a summary and a critical analysis of a specific issue. This type of writing aims to evaluate the impact of the given work or concept in its field.

Want to learn more? Continue reading this article written by Custom-writing experts! It contains:

best tips on how to critique an article or a literary work,
a critique paper example with introduction, body, and conclusion.

💁 What Is a Critique Paper?

👣 Critical Writing Steps

👀 Critical Essay Types

📝 critique paper format, 📑 critique paper outline, 🔗 references.

A critique is a particular academic writing genre that requires you to carefully study, summarize, and critically analyze a study or a concept. In other words, it is nothing more than a critical analysis. That is all you are doing when writing a critical essay: trying to understand the work and present an evaluation. Critical essays can be either positive or negative, as the work deserves.

👣 How to Write a Critique Essay: Main Steps

Starting critique essays is the most challenging part. You are supposed to substantiate your opinion with quotes and paraphrases, avoiding retelling the entire text. A critical analysis aims to find out whether an article or another piece of writing is compelling. First, you need to formulate the author’s thesis: what was the literary work supposed to convey? Then, explore the text on how this main idea was elaborated. Finally, draft your critique according to the structure given below.

Critical Writing Steps Include: Critical Reading, Analyzing the Text, and Making the Draft.

Step 1: Critical Reading

1.1. Attentively read the literary work. While reading, make notes and underline the essentials.

Try to come into the author’s world and think why they wrote such a piece.
Point out which literary devices are successful. Some research in literary theory may be required.
Find out what you dislike about the text, i.e., controversies, gaps, inconsistency, or incompleteness.

1.2. Find or formulate the author’s thesis.

What is the principal argument? In an article, it can be found in the first paragraph.
In a literary work, formulate one of the principal themes, as the thesis is not explicit.
If you write a critique of painting, find out what feelings, emotions, or ideas, the artist attempted to project.

1.3. Make a summary or synopsis of the analyzed text.

One paragraph will suffice. You can use it in your critique essay, if necessary.
The point is to explore the gist.

Step 2: Analyzing the Text

After the reading phase, ask yourself the following questions :

What was your emotional response to the text? Which techniques, images, or ideas made you feel so?
Find out the author’s background. Which experiences made them raise such a thesis? What other significant works have they written that demonstrate the general direction of thought of this person?
Are the concepts used correctly in the text? Are the references reliable, and do they sufficiently substantiate the author’s opinion?

Step 3: Drafting the Essay

Finally, it is time to draft your essay. First of all, you’ll need to write a brief overview of the text you’re analyzing. Then, formulate a thesis statement – one sentence that will contain your opinion of the work under scrutiny. After that, make a one-paragraph summary of the text.

You can use this simple template for the draft version of your analysis. Another thing that can help you at this step is a summary creator to make the creative process more efficient.

Critique Paper Template

Start with an introductory phrase about the domain of the work in question.
Tell which work you are going to analyze, its author, and year of publication.
Specify the principal argument of the work under study.
In the third sentence, clearly state your thesis.
Here you can insert the summary you wrote before.
This is the only place where you can use it. No summary can be written in the main body!
Use one paragraph for every separate analyzed aspect of the text (style, organization, fairness/bias, etc.).
Each paragraph should confirm your thesis (e.g., whether the text is effective or ineffective).
Each paragraph shall start with a topic sentence, followed by evidence, and concluded with a statement referring to the thesis.
Provide a final judgment on the effectiveness of the piece of writing.
Summarize your main points and restate the thesis, indicating that everything you said above confirms it.

You can evaluate the chosen work or concept in several ways. Pick the one you feel more comfortable with from the following:

Descriptive critical essays examine texts or other works. Their primary focus is usually on certain features of a work, and it is common to compare and contrast the subject of your analysis to a classic example of the genre to which it belongs.
Evaluative critical essays provide an estimate of the value of the work. Was it as good as you expected based on the recommendations, or do you feel your time would have been better spent on something else?
Interpretive essays provide your readers with answers that relate to the meaning of the work in question. To do this, you must select a method of determining the meaning, read/watch/observe your analysis subject using this method, and put forth an argument.

There are also different types of critiques. The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, in the article “ Writing critiques ,” discusses them as well as the appropriate critique language.

Critique Paper Topics

Critique of the article Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr .
Interpret the symbolism of Edgar Alan Poe’s The Black Cat .
Examine the topicality of the article Impact of Racial/Ethnic Differences on Child Mental Health Care .
Critical essay on Alice Walker’s short story Everyday Use .
Discuss the value of the essay The Hanging by George Orwell.
A critique on the article Stocks Versus Bonds: Explaining the Equity Risk Premium .
Explore the themes Tennessee Williams reveals in The Glass Menagerie.
Analyze the relevance of the article Leadership Characteristics and Digital Transformation .
Critical evaluation of Jonathan Harvey’s play Beautiful Thing .
Analyze and critique Derek Raymond’s story He Died with His Eyes Open .
Discuss the techniques author uses to present the problem of choice in The Plague .
Examine and evaluate the research article Using Evidence-Based Practice to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia .
Explore the scientific value of the article Our Future: A Lancet Commission on Adolescent Health and Wellbeing .
Describe the ideas E. Hemingway put into his A Clean, Well-Lighted Place .
Analyze the literary qualities of Always Running La Vida Loca: Gang Days in L. A .
Critical writing on The Incarnation of Power by Wright Mills.
Explain the strengths and shortcomings of Tim Kreider’s article The Busy Trap .
Critical response to Woolf’s novel Mrs. Dalloway .
Examine the main idea of Richard Godbeer’s book Escaping Salem .
The strong and weak points of the article The Confusion of Tongues by William G. Bellshaw .
Critical review of Gulliver’s Travels .
Analyze the stylistic devices Anthony Lewis uses in Gideon’s Trumpet.
Examine the techniques Elie Wiesel uses to show relationship transformation in the book Night .
Critique of the play Fences by August Wilson.
The role of exposition in Achebe’s novel Things Fall Apart.
The main themes John Maxwell discusses in his book Disgrace .
Critical evaluation of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 .
The ideas and concept of the book The Vegetarian Imperative .
Different points of view on one historical figure in the book Two Lives of Charlemagne .

Since the APA critique paper format is one of the most common, let’s discuss it in more detail. Check out the information below to learn more:

The APA Manual recommends using the following fonts:

11-point Calibri,
11-point Arial,
10-point Lucida Sans Unicode,
12-point Times New Roman,
11-point Georgia,
10-point Computer Modern.

Add 1-inch margins on all sides.

📌 Page numbers

Page numbers should appear at the top right-hand corner, starting with the title page.

📌 Line spacing

The entire document, including the title page and reference list, should be double-spaced.

📌 Title page

The title page should include the following information:

page number 1 in the top right-hand corner of the page header,
paper title,
the student’s name,
the name of the department and the college or university,
course number and name,
the instructor’s name,
due date (the date format used in your country).

📌 Critique paper title

The title of your critique paper should be no more than 12 words. In addition, it should be centered and typed in bold using title case.

📌 In-text citations

For the in-text citation, provide the author’s last name and publication year in brackets. If you are using direct citation, add the page number after the year.

📌 References

The last page of your paper should include a list of all sources cited in your essay. Here’s a general format of book and journal article citations you should use:

Book: Last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year). Book title: Subtitle . Publisher.

Journal article: Last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year). Title of the article. Journal Title, volume (issue number), start page–end page.

The main parts of good critical response essays are:

Introduction. The introduction is the most essential part of the critical response. It should be concise and include the author and title of the work being analyzed, its main idea, and a strong thesis statement.
Summary. This should be brief and to the point. Only the author’s/creator’s main ideas and arguments should be included.
Analysis/interpretation. Discuss what the author’s/creator’s primary goal was and determine whether this goal was reached successfully. Use the evidence you have gathered to argue whether or not the author/creator achieved was adequately convincing (remember there should be no personal bias in this discussion).
Evaluation/response. At this point, your readers are ready to learn your objective response to the work. It should be professional yet entertaining to read. Do not hesitate to use strong language. You can say that the work you analyzed was weak and poorly-structured if that is the case, but keep in mind that you have to have evidence to back up your claim.
Conclusion. The last paragraph of your work should restate the thesis statement, summarize the key points, and create a sense of closure for the readers.

Critique Paper Introduction

The introduction is setting the stage for your analysis. Here are some tips to follow when working on it:

Provide the reader with a brief synopsis of the main points of the work you are critiquing .
State your general opinion of the work , using it as your thesis statement. The ideal situation is that you identify and use a controversial thesis.
Remember that you will uncover a lot of necessary information about the work you are critiquing. You mustn’t make use of all of it, providing the reader with information that is unnecessary in your critique. If you are writing about Shakespeare, you don’t have to waste your or your reader’s time going through all of his works.

Critique Paper Body

The body of the critique contains the supporting paragraphs. This is where you will provide the facts that prove your main idea and support your thesis. Follow the tips below when writing the body of your critique.

Every paragraph must focus on a precise concept from the paper under your scrutiny , and your job is to include arguments to support or disprove that concept. Concrete evidence is required.
A critical essay is written in the third-person and ensures the reader is presented with an objective analysis.
Discuss whether the author was able to achieve their goals and adequately get their point across.
It is important not to confuse facts and opinions . An opinion is a personal thought and requires confirmation, whereas a fact is supported by reliable data and requires no further proof. Do not back up one idea with another one.
Remember that your purpose is to provide the reader with an understanding of a particular piece of literature or other work from your perspective. Be as specific as possible.

Critique Paper Conclusion

Finally, you will need to write a conclusion for your critique. The conclusion reasserts your overall general opinion of the ideas presented in the text and ensures there is no doubt in the reader’s mind about what you believe and why. Follow these tips when writing your conclusion:

Summarize the analysis you provided in the body of the critique.
Summarize the primary reasons why you made your analysis .
Where appropriate, provide recommendations on how the work you critiqued can be improved.

For more details on how to write a critique, check out the great critique analysis template provided by Thompson Rivers University.

If you want more information on essay writing in general, look at the Secrets of Essay Writing .

Example of Critique Paper with Introduction, Body, and Conclusion

Check out this critical response example to “The Last Inch” by James Aldridge to show how everything works in practice:

Introduction

In his story “The Last Inch,” James Aldridge addresses the issue of the relationship between parents and children. The author captured the young boy’s coming into maturity coinciding with a challenging trial. He also demonstrated how the twelve-year-old boy obtained his father’s character traits. Aldridge’s prose is both brutal and poetic, expressing his characters’ genuine emotions and the sad truths of their situations.

Body: Summary

The story is about Ben Ensley, an unemployed professional pilot, who decides to capture underwater shots for money. He travels to Shark Bay with his son, Davy. Ben is severely injured after being attacked by a shark while photographing. His last hope of survival is to fly back to the little African hamlet from where they took off.

Body: Analysis

The story effectively uses the themes of survival and fatherhood and has an intriguing and captivating plot. In addition, Ben’s metamorphosis from a failing pilot to a determined survivor is effectively presented. His bond with his son, Davy, adds depth and emotional importance to the story. At the same time, the background information about Ben’s past and his life before the shark attack could be more effectively integrated into the main story rather than being presented as separate blocks of text.

Body: Evaluation

I find “The Last Inch” by James Aldridge a very engaging and emotional story since it highlights the idea of a father’s unconditional love and determination in the face of adversity. I was also impressed by the vivid descriptions and strong character development of the father and son.

Conclusion

“The Last Inch” by James Aldridge is an engaging and emotional narrative that will appeal to readers of all ages. It is a story of strength, dedication, and the unbreakable link between father and son. Though some backstory could be integrated more smoothly, “The Last Inch” impresses with its emotional punch. It leaves the readers touched by the raw power of fatherly love and human will.

📚 Critique Essay Examples

With all of the information and tips provided above, your way will become clearer when you have a solid example of a critique essay.

Below is a critical response to The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

When speaking of feminist literature that is prominent and manages to touch on incredibly controversial issues, The Yellow Wallpaper is the first book that comes to mind. Written from a first-person perspective, magnifying the effect of the narrative, the short story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman introduces the reader to the problem of the physical and mental health of the women of the 19th century. However, the message that is intended to concern feminist ideas is rather subtle. Written in the form of several diary entries, the novel offers a mysterious plot, and at the same time, shockingly realistic details.

What really stands out about the novel is the fact that the reader is never really sure how much of the story takes place in reality and how much of it happens in the psychotic mind of the protagonist. In addition, the novel contains a plethora of description that contributes to the strain and enhances the correlation between the atmosphere and the protagonist’s fears: “The color is repellent, almost revolting; a smoldering unclean yellow, strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight” (Gilman).

Despite Gilman’s obvious intent to make the novel a feminist story with a dash of thriller thrown in, the result is instead a thriller with a dash of feminism, as Allen (2009) explains. However, there is no doubt that the novel is a renowned classic. Offering a perfect portrayal of the 19th-century stereotypes, it is a treasure that is certainly worth the read.

If you need another critique essay example, take a look at our sample on “ The Importance of Being Earnest ” by Oscar Wilde.

And here are some more critique paper examples for you check out:

A Good Man Is Hard to Find: Critique Paper
Critique on “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman
“When the Five Rights Go Wrong” Article Critique
Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey — Comparison & Critique
Benefits and Disadvantages of Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress: Article Critique
Reducing Stress in Student Nurses: Article Critique
Management of Change and Professional Safety – Article Critique
“Views of Young People Towards Physical Activity”: Article Critique

Seeing an example of a critique is so helpful. You can find many other examples of a critique paper at the University of Minnesota and John Hopkins University. Plus, you can check out this video for a great explanation of how to write a critique.

Critical Analysis
Writing an Article Critique
The Critique Essay
Critique Essay
Writing a Critique
Writing A Book Critique
Media Critique
Tips for an Effective Creative Writing Critique
How to Write an Article Critique
Share to Facebook
Share to LinkedIn
Share to email

How to Write a Creative Essay: Tips, Topics, and Techniques

What is a creative essay, if not the way to express yourself? Crafting such a paper is a task that allows you to communicate your opinion and tell a story. However, even using your imagination to a great extent doesn’t free you from following academic writing rules. Don’t even get...

Compare and Contrast Essay Writing Tips and Examples

A compare and contrast essay — what is it? In this type of paper, you compare two different things or ideas, highlighting what is similar between the two, and you also contrast them, highlighting what is different. The two things might be events, people, books, points of view, lifestyles, or...

How to Write an Expository Essay: Outline, & Example

What is an expository essay? This type of writing aims to inform the reader about the subject clearly, concisely, and objectively. The keyword here is “inform”. You are not trying to persuade your reader to think a certain way or let your own opinions and emotions cloud your work. Just stick to the...

Short Story Analysis: How to Write It Step by Step [New]

Have you ever tried to write a story analysis but ended up being completely confused and lost? Well, the task might be challenging if you don’t know the essential rules for literary analysis creation. But don’t get frustrated! We know how to write a short story analysis, and we are...

How to Write a Persuasive Essay: Step-by-Step Guide + Examples

Have you ever tried to get somebody round to your way of thinking? Then you should know how daunting the task is. Still, if your persuasion is successful, the result is emotionally rewarding. A persuasive essay is a type of writing that uses facts and logic to argument and substantiate...

Common Essay Mistakes—Writing Errors to Avoid [Updated]

One of the most critical skills that students gain during their college years is assignment writing. Composing impressive essays and research papers can be quite challenging, especially for ESL students. Nonetheless, before learning the art of academic writing, you may make numerous common essay mistakes. Such involuntary errors appear in:...

How to Start an Autobiography about Yourself: Full Guide + Autobiography Examples

You’re probably thinking: I’m no Mahatma Gandhi or Steve Jobs—what could I possibly write in my memoir? I don’t even know how to start an autobiography, let alone write the whole thing. But don’t worry: essay writing can be easy, and this autobiography example for students is here to show...

Why I Want to Be a Teacher Essay: Writing Guide [2024]

Some people know which profession to choose from childhood, while others decide much later in life. However, and whenever you come to it, you may have to elaborate on it in your personal statement or cover letter. This is widely known as “Why I Want to Be a Teacher” essay.

Friendship Essay: Writing Guide & Topics on Friendship [New]

Assigned with an essay about friendship? Congrats! It’s one of the best tasks you could get. Digging through your memories and finding strong arguments for this paper can be an enjoyable experience. I bet you will cope with this task effortlessly as we can help you with the assignment. Just...

How to Write an Autobiography: Questions, Principles, & What to Include

When you are assigned an autobiography to write, tens, and even hundreds of questions start buzzing in your head. How to write autobiography essay parts? What to include? How to make your autobiography writing flow? Don’t worry about all this and use the following three simple principles and 15 creative...

Life Experience Essay: How to Write a Brilliant Paper

A life experience essay combines the elements of narration, description, and self-reflection. Such a paper has to focus on a single event that had a significant impact on a person’s worldview and values. Writing an essay about life experience prompts students to do the following: You may struggle with such...

An Essay about Someone Who Has Made an Impact on Your Life

Who has made a significant impact in your life and why? Essay on the topic might be challenging to write. One is usually asked to write such a text as a college admission essay. A topic for this paper can be of your choice or pre-established by the institution. Either...

May I know who’s the author? For my citation activity.

Hello, Kriszha! You can reference it as a web source/web page.

Wow…great work… kindly can you assist me in writing a critique about indiscipline in a school

That’s an interesting demonstration I watched. However, my weakness is that I’m very poor in language and analysing issues.

Hi, can you help me for my assignment about article critiquing?

I need your help if you can send me a full written dissertation..thank you

This is gud

Can you help me to my activities

Thank you so much! This really helped me!

Encyclopedia

Writing with artificial intelligence, critique – a research-based guide to criticism in academic & professional writing.

Learn about the psychology and types of critique so you can adjust your critiques to help others' develop their writing and ideas. Critique may be formative (focused on recommended revisions and edits ) or summative (focused on grading and ranking). Critique can help writers, speakers, knowledge worker s improve or it can undermine and silence them. Learn about different feedback styles so you can discern how best to give (and receive) critical feedback. And, perhaps even more importantly, learn to moderate your emotions when receiving difficult feedback.

Table of Contents

What is Critique?

Critique is the systematic evaluation and assessment of a creative or intellectual work—often a text—to analyze its effectiveness in content, structure, and style, among other factors like originality, relevance, and impact. The goal is usually either to improve the work through formative feedback or to provide a final evaluation via summative feedback.

Formative feedback aims to offer specific ways to improve a text’s ability to engage and inform its audience. For example, in an academic setting, a teacher might provide in-depth comments on a student’s essay draft, suggesting more effective ways to structure arguments or clarify points.

Summative feedback, in contrast, provides an overall assessment and often serves to justify a grade; for instance, the final letter grade on a term paper evaluates your comprehensive understanding and execution of the assignment.

Critique occurs in a variety of settings, including teacher grading, peer review, self-critique, or professional editing, each with unique conventions and objectives.

The ability to offer and receive critique is not merely an academic requirement but a transferable skill that holds value in professional and workplace settings, where textual communication often determines the success of projects and collaborations. Furthermore, effective critique fosters a culture of continuous improvement and intellectual rigor, enabling not only the refinement of individual texts but also the development of critical thinking skills vital to both academic and professional success.

Related Concepts: Contract Grading ; Empathetic Information Literacy ; Leadership ; Openness

The 6 Flavors of Critique: Your Guide in School and the Workplace 🍦

Critique is your secret sauce whether you’re in academia or the workforce. Here’s the scoop.

1️⃣ Formative Feedback: The Coach 🏋️

Think of this as real-time guidance from your professors, managers, or clients. They’re helping you tweak ongoing projects to reach their full potential. 🌟

2️⃣ Summative Feedback: The Scoreboard ⚖️

This is your final grade or performance review—your ultimate evaluation in academic or professional settings. 🏆

3️⃣ Rhetorical Feedback: The Strategy Guru 🎯

This is Sherlock Holmes meets strategic planning. It’s about understanding the “who, what, where, when, and why” behind your work. Whether it’s Audience Awareness 🎯, Medium 📝, Timing (Kairos) ⏰, Purpose 🎭, Subject 📚, Text Composition 📜, or your role as a writer, speaker, or knowledge worker 👩‍💻👨‍💻—all these elements are on the radar. 🕵️

4️⃣ Global vs. Local Critique: Big Picture to Details 🌍🔍

Global critiques focus on overarching themes, while local critiques zoom in on the finer points like sentence structure and word choice. 🖋️

5️⃣ Specialized Critiques: The Toolkit 🛠️

Side Notes : Quick hits for details. 📝
Rubric-based : Scoring key elements like organization. 📊
Endnotes : A recap of what rocked and what didn’t. 🎸
Line-by-Line Editing : A meticulous walkthrough to polish each sentence. 🧼

6️⃣ Radical Transparency: The Truth Bomb 💣

Coined by Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, Radical Transparency emphasizes a culture of open communication, honest feedback, and shared information for informed decision-making. It’s more than just being blunt—it’s about fostering trust and collaboration throughout the team. 🤝

Constructive critique is essential in this transparent culture. It offers continuous learning and improvement opportunities, making your organization—whether it’s a classroom, a startup, or a Fortune 500 company—more agile and innovative. 🌱

However, Dalio critiques traditional education for not preparing us for this level of openness. He argues that to fit into a radically transparent culture, we need the skill to both give and receive effective critique—a skill often underemphasized but crucial in both academic and professional settings. 🎓🏢

By championing Radical Transparency and effective critique, Dalio aims to create a dynamic, inclusive, and high-performing environment. His advocacy underscores the importance of these concepts not just in the business realm but in our broader journey of personal and professional growth. 🌟

Tips for Giving Critiques to Others

Before diving into the critique, it’s essential to gauge what type or genre of feedback would be most beneficial for the situation at hand. Whether it’s formative, summative, global, local, or even rooted in radical transparency, your approach should align with both the project’s stage and the specific needs of your peer or colleague.

Establish Openness for Feedback

Begin with an initial conversation to ensure the other party is open to critique. This sets the stage for a more constructive and receptive dialogue.

Clarify Your Intentions

Be explicit about your aim in offering feedback. Is it to improve the project? To offer a different perspective? Setting the tone upfront minimizes misunderstandings.

Identify Blind Spots 🎯

When well-versed in a subject, people can inadvertently omit crucial information. Help them see what they might be missing.

Address Emotional Biases 😌

Emotional investment in a topic can cloud judgment. Point out where this may be affecting the work, but do so tactfully.

Consider the Audience 👥

If the project seems to neglect the intended audience’s background or needs, highlight this. The goal is a message that resonates with its recipients.

Spotlight Gaps and Inconsistencies 🕵️‍♀️

Are there logical flaws or gaps in reasoning? Identifying these can help transform the work from “writer-based prose” to “reader-based prose.”

Summarize and Suggest 📝

End with a summary of the major points you’ve discussed, along with concrete suggestions for improvement.

By sticking to these tips and tailoring your feedback style to the situation, you can ensure that your critique is not only insightful but also encourages a culture of growth and improvement.

Tips for Receiving Critiques from Others

Receiving critique is an art as much as giving it. There are times to seek feedback and times when it might be premature. Recognizing when you’re ready for a critique—be it formative, summative, or another genre—will help you make the most of the process. Here’s how to gracefully and productively handle critiques.

Assess the Timing 🕒

Critique can be more or less useful depending on where you are in the writing process . If your project or idea is still in a nascent stage, external input may derail rather than guide you.

Be Open to Receiving Feedback 🎧

Whenever you do seek critique, prepare yourself mentally to be open. The objective is your growth, even if that involves some growing pains.

Manage Your Emotions 😌

Critique can hit close to home, but remember to separate your work from your self-worth. Breathe, listen, and manage your emotions so they don’t manage you.

Understand the Intentions 👀

Different critiques serve different purposes. Know whether the critique aims to guide you (formative) or evaluate your end product (summative).

Avoid Being Defensive 🛡️

Even if the critique stings, resist the impulse to immediately defend your choices. Instead, listen actively and ask clarifying questions.

Reflect and Consider 🤔

Take the time to really think about the feedback. Not all critiques will apply; you’re allowed to reject feedback after thoughtful consideration.

Understand Audience Concerns 🎯

If the critique suggests you’re not meeting your audience’s needs or expectations, that’s important feedback to consider in your revisions.

Apply or Adapt 🔄

Thoughtfully integrate the feedback that resonates with you into your work. Use each critique as a stepping stone for improvement.

Say Thanks 🙏

Always thank your critique-giver. Whether or not you agree with their perspective, they’ve offered you a new lens through which to view your work.

By understanding when to seek critique and being prepared to manage your reactions to it, you can maximize the benefits of feedback and minimize its potential pitfalls. Keep in mind that receiving critique is not just about immediate improvements, but also about fostering a mindset conducive to long-term growth and development.

Is all feedback useful?

Critique is a complex human phenomenon. At times critique can be messy, chaotic, and counterproductive. It can leave writers mute, feeling futile.

Feedback can be destructive, a way of controlling and silencing others. Feedback can be contaminated by jealousy and Machiavellian power moves.

Sometimes feedback is only partially correct. Truth comes in shades of gray. Not all feedback is equal. Part of professionalism in the context of composing is not to be overly emotional about tough critiques. To progress as a writer, speaker, knowledge worker . . . you need to learn to sort through critiques, reject some suggestions, and seriously consider other suggestions.

Some critiques are false or misleading. There are instances when you really do know better, when you should ignore someone’s feedback. It’s not unusual for an audience (bosses, teachers, peers) to fail to understand you because they were rushed or preoccupied. And it could be true that the draft you shared was a bit too underdeveloped for your audience to see its potential or provide helpful critiques.

What are the dangers of critique?

Critique can have a destructive influence on writers–particularly young people who are first learning how to write. Perhaps this is even more true for younger students who haven’t yet mastered the basics of composing , rhetoric , invention , revision , style , or editing

On occasion, people can be cruel and insensitive. Perhaps the writer struggled mightily and wrote countless drafts yet came at the document without a strong linguistic or literary background. Perhaps the writer had far less knowledge of the topic than the reader critic. Or perhaps the writer was learning a new genre and new research methods .

Aware of the emotionally charged nature of critique, writing teachers, instructors, and professors in higher-education institutions are sometimes timorous about providing real critique. Grade inflation and student evaluations have moved the grading curve in the humanities from a B to A range, especially for adjunct faculty, assistant professors, and non-tenured faculty. The result, as Garrison Keillor so aptly satirizes in the fictional community of Lake Wobegon, where “ all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average .”

Yet the role of critique is even more complicated than all that. Why? Because sometimes the words on the page are more than the words on the page. Sometimes they reflect the lifeforce of the rhetor. Sometimes for the writer, the words on the page are more than the words on a page. This phenomenon has been described by Compositionists as writer-based prose .

The idea behind writer-based prose is that the reviewer may not really know what the writer intended because of the ambiguities of their text. Sometimes, the writer-based prose has amazing innovative potential that the would-be critic is simply not sophisticated enough to discern. Appropriating the student’s text–that is rewriting it as the reviewer would prefer it to be written–could be a destructive act. To help the writer’s original intention be realized, the reviewer may be better off just sharing to the rhetor how confusing they find the text to be.

Elbow , P., & Belanoff , P. (1989). Sharing and responding . McGraw-Hill.

Provide Feedback in Group Situations

Recommended.

Student engrossed in reading on her laptop, surrounded by a stack of books

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

You cannot climb a mountain without a plan / John Read

Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing

Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing

Image of a colorful page with a big question in the center, "What is Page Design?"

Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact

Suggested edits.

Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
Your full name
Your email address *
Page URL needing edits *
Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Joseph M. Moxley

Follow these strategies in order to give and get constructive critique. Review research and theory on collaboration in team settings.

Introduction

The name of the source or event
What kind of source it is (book, film, lecture, etc.)
The name of the author or the speaker
The author or speaker's experience/expertise on the topic
The main argument in the source (or the thesis statement of the source)
The intended (target) audience for the source or event
The purpose of the source or the event
Did the author/speaker well-support their thesis statement?
Did the author use any interest supports (stories, humor, examples, interactions, personal experience, etc.). Were they effective?
What kind of evidence did the author/speaker use in the source (statistics, facts, quotations, surveys, studies, interviews, expert opinions). Are these resources credible/reliable? Did the evidence add to or contradict the author/speaker's argument?
Did the source have quality content (avoiding fillers, presented newsworthy information, kept audiences interested)?
Did the source use any visual aids (PowerPoint, images, artwork, etc.). Did the visual aids match or enhance what the author/speaker was discussing? Were the visual aids clearly organized, spell-checked, and included citations?
Did the speaker move well through different topics?
If the source was a live event or a recording, was the speaker energetic? Did they talk to the crowd or did they look at their notes too much? Were you able to hear and understand the speaker?
If you're critiquing a film, were the film techniques used effective?

Conclusion/Recommendation

What was your overall impression of the source?
Would you recommend this source to others? Why or why not?
What are your final thoughts about the source?

Helpful Handouts

Sample Critique Paper Check out a sample critique essay of an event a student attended.
How to Critique for a Live Performance (WOW) This worksheet will provide an outline of how to write a critique for the Wonders of Writing (WOW) event at SCC.
How to Critique a Live/Zoom Presentation (Informational Presentation) This worksheet will show the outline for writing a critique for a live or a Zoom informational presentation.
<< Previous: Writing a Critique
Next: Recommended Videos >>
Recommended Videos
Recommended Websites

Questions? Ask a Librarian

SCC Librarian and student working together

Last Updated: Jul 19, 2024 1:21 PM
URL: https://libguides.sccsc.edu/writingacritique

Giles Campus | 864.592.4764 | Toll Free 866.542.2779 | Contact Us

Info for Library Staff | Guide Search

Return to SCC Website

What Is a Critique in Composition?

Tips on Writing a Peer Review

Hero Images/Getty Images

An Introduction to Punctuation
Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
B.A., English, State University of New York

A critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a text , production, or performance—either one's own (a self-critique ) or someone else's. In composition , a critique is sometimes called a response paper . When written by another expert in the field, a critique can also be called a peer review . Peer reviews are done to decide whether to accept an article for publication in a scholarly journal or, in an education setting, can be done in groups of students who offer feedback to each other on their papers ( peer response ).

Critiques differ from reviews (these are also different from peer reviews) in that critiques offer more depth to their analysis. Think of the difference between a scholarly article examining a work of literature in a journal (critique) and the kinds of topics that would be covered there vs. a few-hundred-word review of a book in a newspaper or magazine for the lay audience, for readers to decide whether they should purchase it.

Compare the term critique with critical analysis , critical essay , and evaluation essay .

Critiquing criteria are the standards, rules, or tests that serve as the bases for judgments.

Critiquing a Paper

A critique starts out with a summary of the topic of the paper but differs from a straight summary because it adds the reviewer's analysis.

If a critique is happening to the first draft of a paper, the issues brought by the reviewers need to be large-scale issues with the premise or procedure of obtaining the results—in the case of a scientific paper peer review—and arguments, such as flaws in logic or source material and fallacies, rather than be criticisms on a line level (grammar and the like). Ambiguity and irony presented in the paper could be targets as well.

"The critique is the process of objectively and critically evaluating a research report's content for scientific merit and application to practice, theory, and education, write Geri LoBiondo-Wood and Judith Haber. "It requires some knowledge of the subject matter and knowledge of how to critically read and use critiquing criteria." ("Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice." Elsevier Health Sciences, 2006)

A critique should also point out what works well, not just the flaws in the paper.

"A critique should emphasize first what the article contributes to the field and then identify the shortcomings or limitations," write authors H. Beall and J. Trimbur. "In other words, a critique is a balanced appraisal, not a hatchet job." ("How to Read a Scientific Article." In "Communicating Science: Professional Contexts," ed. by Eileen Scanlon et al. Taylor & Francis, 1998)

The Purpose of a Critique

Arguments by the reviewer also need to be backed up with evidence. It isn't enough just to say that the paper in question is flawed but also how it's flawed and why—what's the proof that the argument won't hold up?

"It is important to be clear about what a critique is supposed to accomplish," write authors C. Grant Luckhardt and William Bechtel. They continue:

A critique is not the same as a demonstration that the conclusion of someone's argument is false. Imagine that someone has circulated a memorandum arguing that your company retain your current legal counsel. You, however, are convinced that it is time for a change, and want to demonstrate that....It is important to note here that you can prepare such a demonstration without mentioning any of your colleague's arguments or rebutting them. A critique of your colleague's demonstration, in contrast, requires you to examine the arguments in the demonstration and show that they fail to establish the conclusion that the current legal counsel should be retained. "A critique of your colleague's demonstration does not show that its conclusion is wrong. It only shows that the arguments advanced do not establish the conclusion it is claimed they do." ("How to Do Things With Logic." Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994)

Self-Critiques in Creative Writing

A related term to critiquing used frequently in scholarly Bible study is exegesis, though it doesn't apply only to Bible scholarship.

"An exegesis (in a creative writing discourse )...is a scholarly piece of writing with a focus on textual analysis and comparison using literature which relates to your creative writing project. Usually an exegesis is longer than a critique and reads more like a dissertation. There tends to be greater emphasis on your chosen comparative text than on your own creative writing project, with a clear thesis linking the two. "The good news is, once you learn how to write a critique on your creative process, you will find that it actually helps you to better understand your creative writing." (Tara Mokhtari, The Bloomsbury Introduction to Creative Writing . Bloomsbury, 2015)

Learn How to Use Extended Definitions in Essays and Speeches
Sophists From Ancient Greece
Dead Metaphor Definition and Examples
What Is a Compound Verb?
listeme (words)
Affect vs. Effect: How to Choose the Right Word
Forth vs. Fourth: How to Choose the Right Word
How is a Daffynition Word Used?
Stipulative Definitions in English
Meiosis (Rhetoric)
What Is Aphesis?
Definition and Examples of Science Writing
Definition of Usage Labels and Notes in English Dictionaries
Using Dependant vs. Dependent
The Etymology of Words and Their Surprising Histories
Subordination in English Grammar

Daily Crossword
Word Puzzle
Word Finder
Word of the Day
Synonym of the Day
Word of the Year
Language stories
All featured
Gender and sexuality
All pop culture
Writing hub
Grammar essentials
Commonly confused
All writing tips
Pop culture
Writing tips

[ kri- teek ]

an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.
a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc.
the art or practice of criticism.

verb (used with object)

to review or analyze critically .

/ krɪˈtiːk /

a critical essay or commentary, esp on artistic work
the act or art of criticizing

Word History and Origins

Origin of critique 1

Example Sentences

As the years went on, I called Tom more and more often — not just for his critiques on players but because he knew everyone and everything in college basketball.

Those critiques re-emerged in December, when it was finally announced that Space Force personnel would be called guardians.

Karau declined to comment, but the legal opinion echoes critiques of advocates, police and some attorneys who worry Descano’s move to withdraw from some misdemeanor cases his predecessor handled could shortchange some victims.

Dolly Parton’s hit song “9 to 5” is a rousing critique of the American workplace.

Aware of the critiques that often surround him, Virgil Abloh aims to take back that narrative.

Do we critique those women who would modify themselves just to reach those standards?

This photograph is a critique of how draconian the rules of society can be.

The critique extends into nearly every little crevice and lacuna of our civic life.

Wisneski agreed that the concern about self-reporting is a “valid critique” of his study.

Even her own publication, The New York Times, issued a stinging critique.

It is the last edition (Paris, 1840), and purports to be "augmente d'un examen critique et des preuves positives," &c.

The critique of Lucien de Rubempre established his position.

Look at this from the author of a very interesting and laudatory critique.

He had called on Bauerle, the editor of the paper, and had been told that a critique of the concert would soon appear.

He was planning again a book on Byron, and asks for Taine's critique of him 217 in his Littrature anglaise.

Related Words

examination

+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.

Undergraduate Programs
Majors & Minors
Academic Catalog & Courses
Goshen Core
Global Education
Adult & Continuing Studies
Nursing (RN to BSN)
Business Management (BS)
Communication (BS)
Social Work (BS)
Transition to Interpreting
Transition to Teaching
English Learners License
Graduate Programs
Business Administration (MBA)
Environmental Education (MA)
Nursing (MS, FNP Track)
Master of Social Work (MSW)
Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
Online Programs
Costs & Financial Aid
Scholarships
Net Price Calculator
International Students
Transfer Students
Admitted Students
Committed Students
Financial Aid
Student Life
Health & Safety
Dining Services
Clubs & Activities
Spiritual Life
Student Success
Academic Success Center
Accessibility Services
Orientation
Mission, Vision & Values
Quick Facts
Leadership & Governance
Faith Identity
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
Sustainability
Community Engagement
Where We Are
Map & Directions
City of Goshen
Virtual Visit
Alumni Directory
Transcripts
The Bulletin
Homecoming Weekend
Parents of Prospective Students
Parents of Current Students
Current Students
Registrar's Office
Accounting Office
Faculty & Staff
Human Resources
Department Forms
Quick Links
Event Calendar
News & Events
Events Calendar
Latest News
GC in the News
Social Media Directory
Alumni Magazine
Photo Albums
Current Blogs
President's
Ecuador SST
Tanzania SST
Music Center
E-Subscribe
Live Streams
Cross Country
Track and Field
GoLeafs.net
Live Stream
Online Store
Rec-Fitness Center
Intramurals

Essay Critique Guidelines

Whenever you read an essay, use the following questions to guide your response.

First, keep in mind that, although you may not be a writing expert, you are THE reader of this essay and your response is a valid one . I have found that almost every reader, regardless of experience, can identify the primary strength and weakness in an essay, although their method of describing those issues may be different. The author will welcome your response and your ability to explain your reaction in a new way. Although the author is not required to, and really shouldn’t, respond to everything you say, he or she will take your comments seriously and consider how the essays has enlightened or confused you. Therefore, comment freely, although respectfully. Keep in mind that it is better to begin by noting the strengths of the essay before pointing out the areas that need improvement. I would always include a personal response to questions like the following: What about the essay most connects with your experience? Moves you? Provokes you? Entertains you?

So that is how to respond. So how do you critique? For every essay, regardless of the mode, consider the broad categories of content, organization, style, and correctness.

Content : Consider the topic (its appropriateness and interest for the assignment as well as a clear focus suitable to essay length) and the way the topic is developed (clarity sufficiency of its argument, its scope, subcategories, amount and type of examples, anecdotes, evidence, etc.).
Organization : Consider how the essay is introduced and concluded (especially looking for a “frame” to the essay, where the intro and conclusion refer to the same idea), whether the thesis is located in the most helpful place (direct or implied), how the essay is structured, whether the order or extent of development is successful, as well as how individual paragraphs are organized (clear topic sentences, appropriate and concrete evidence, logical organization of evidence).
Style : Style can refer to the overall style of an essay: whether the tone is appropriate (humorous, serious, reflective, satirical, etc.), whether you use sufficient and appropriate variety (factual, analytical, evaluative, reflective), whether you use sufficient creativity. Style can also refer to the style of individual sentences: whether you use a variety of sentences styles and lengths, whether sentences are worded clearly, and whether word choice is interesting and appropriate.

Rolling around in the bottom of the drawer, Tim found the missing earring. [certainly the earring was rolling, not Tim!]

You could also easily tell that the following sentence actually contains two sentences that need punctuation between them:

The new manager instituted several new procedures some were impractical. [You need to add punctuation (period) after “procedures” and capitalize “some.”]

Further Directions for Specific Assignments

Below are more detailed questions to consider when responding to individual types of essays. First, make sure that you have reviewed the description of the essay mode in the Essay Assignment Guidelines. Use at least one or two of these when responding to an essay. Do not simply answer yes or no; offer specific evidence from the text and elaborate on the reasons behind your answer.

Personal Essay Critique:

Does the writer have a clear but understated purpose to the essay?
Does it avoid being overly moralistic or heavy-handed?
Does the essay contain suspense or tension that is resolved in some way?
Do you have any suggestions for organizing the essay, such as focusing in on one event rather than many, providing more background, turning explanation into action, etc.?
Does the essay make good use of concrete description, anecdote, and dialogue?
Does the essay help you to feel the emotions rather than just describe the emotions of the author?
Does the essay reveal a significant aspect of the writer’s personality?
Does the writer seem authentic?
Is this a passionate piece? Is it creative?

Critical Review Critique

Does a direct thesis convey both the subject and the reviewer’s value judgment?
Does the review provide a summary or description to help you experience the film, music, event, etc.? Note places where the author provides too much or too little detail.
Does the essay clearly identify relevant criteria for evaluation? Are they appropriate, believable, and consistent?
Are any important features of the reviewed subject omitted?
Logos (logic, content) : Does the essay provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details and examples to adequately inform and entertain?
Ethos (author) : Does the author’s judgment seem sound and convincing?
Pathos (emotional appeals) : Does the author responsibly and effectively utilize emotional appeals to the audience?
Does the author include adequate reference to the opposition and respond to that opposition appropriately?

Information Essay Critique : The questions posed about an informative essay will vary, depending on the purpose and strategy of the essay. The SMGW suggests evaluating for the following issues:

Is topic clearly explained and sufficiently focused?
Does the content fit the audience?
Is it organized effectively?
Are definitions clear?
Are other strategies (classification, comparison/contrast, analysis) used effectively?
Are sources used sufficiently, effectively, and appropriately?

You might also assess the following criteria:

Does the author utilize vivid detail, interesting examples, and lively language?
Does the essay avoid emphasizing judgment over explanation?
Does the essay have a clear focus or implied thesis?

Comparison/Contrast Essay Critique

Is the purpose for a comparison or contrast evident and convincing?
Does the essay identify significant and parallel characteristics for comparison?
Does the author adequately explain, analyze, or reflect on the comparison or contrast?
Does the author provide appropriate transitions words to indicate comparison and contrast?
Is the treatment of each side of the comparison or contrast in balance?
Does the essay provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details?

Feature Article Critique

Does this article interest you? Do you think it will interest the intended audience? Can you suggest ways to increase interest?
Can you tell what the “angle” or implied thesis is? Does the author avoid editorial judgment on the subject while still keeping the purpose clear?
Has the writer done sufficient research? What questions have gone unasked or unanswered? Whose point of view or what information would add further to the completeness of the feature?
Is the subject presented vividly with sensory images, graphic detail, and figurative language? Do you have suggestions of details or images to include?
Does the writer use an appropriate mixture of anecdote, quotation, description, and explanation? Would more or less of one of these improve the essay?
Are the beginning and ending paragraphs interesting and appropriate for the specific audience? Consider the need for a “lead sentence” if intended for a newspaper.

Documented Argument Critique

Is the thesis clear, argumentative, and effective? Why or why not?
Are the topic and thesis are reasonable for the assignment, audience, and context of the essay?
Does the author define his or her terms and provide sufficient background information? What ideas or terms are undefined or inadequately explained?
Is the thesis supported by clear reasons? Are the reasons clearly worded and supported sufficiently?
Do the reasons fit logically together and are they placed in the right order?
Does the author adequately address the opposition? What is another opposing argument he/she should or could have addressed?
Has the author done adequate research?
Are the works cited adequately introduced and explained before citing from them?
Does the paper contain an appropriate blend of well-placed quotations within a context of the author’s own words and paraphrases from other sources?
Is the writer clearly in charge, naturally introducing and interacting with sources rather than merely reporting on them?
Do you find the argument convincing? What might you add or omit?

Business Writing Critique

Does the memo begin with the most important information?
Does the memo build rapport by involving the reader in opening paragraph?
Does the memo provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details? Is it focused and brief?
Does the memo focus each paragraph on one idea?
Is the memo informed, accurate, demonstrating the author’s grasp of the situation?
Is the final paragraph calling for a specific action? Is it brief? Does it build good will?
Is the memo form correct, with concise subject line, initialed name, correct spacing?
Is the information arranged (indentations and numbering) in a way that makes it easy to skim and still get central information?

Cover letter

Does the first paragraph identify who the author is, briefly state why he/she is writing, and refer to how he/she found out about the job?
Does the second paragraph highlight specific strengths, special abilities, or features of the résumé to be noted?
Does the third paragraph make a specific request of the reader or address what action is to be taken?
Does the letter provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details to make the request convincing?
Is the letter brief and focused? What elements could be eliminated?
Does the writer achieve his or her purpose? Does it make you want to consider the résumé more carefully?
Is the tone of the letter courteous without being too formal, relaxed without being too familiar?
Is the letter’s form appropriate (heading, spacing, greeting, salutation)? Is the letter addressed to a specific person rather than a general “Dear Madam/Sir”?
Does the résumé contain the necessary features for the position (name/address, position desired, education, work experience, achievements, relevant personal information, references)?
Does the résumé contain only essential, relevant information for the position required?
Does the résumé emphasize the applicant’s strengths?
Does the résumé emphasize what is unique about this person’s experience? Does it demonstrate a common interest or ability (leadership, teaching experience, dedication, creativity, etc.)?
What additional information might you like to have about this applicant?
If you were leading an interview based on this résumé, what are two questions you might ask?
Does the résumé look neat (appropriate spacing, clear headings, good quality paper)?
Is the résumé easy to read?
Is the information presented as concisely as possible?
Are the elements of each section of the résumé presented in a parallel format and style (begin w/ active verbs, put date in consistent place, use of parallelism for elements, consistent underlining or italics)?

What Is the Infrastructure of Critique?

F rom Israel blockading electricity to the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio , we live in a moment of infrastructural collapse. Large-scale public works projects have been privatized, meaning that the systems of circulation that enable day-to-day life—from pipelines to data clouds, drinking water to education—are crumbling at increasingly accelerated rates. Now is “a scene shaped by the infrastructural breakdown of modernist practices,” writes Lauren Berlant. 1 Thus, in the political and cultural imaginary, infrastructure has gone from perennial bit player to a starring role.

Not only is political attention to public infrastructure increasing, but also scholarly attention to literary infrastructure. Such work investigates material infrastructure (the object that generates critique) as well as generating a method of critique grounded in infrastructural thinking (investigating how and under what conditions literary critique is produced).

When I say that infrastructure itself is the object of critique, I mean that an increasing number of critics are interested in the literary life of material infrastructures. Books like Julia Lee’s The Racial Railroad and Jessica Hurley’s Infrastructures of Apocalypse , for example, consider how railroads and nuclear power create new narrative logics and literary forms. Lee and Hurley underline how systems and hierarchies are reproduced through the infrastructures that we depend on in our daily lives.

But infrastructure has also become a method for thinking about how and where we produce literary critique. Consider a triumvirate of books published last year: Alexander Manshel’s Writing Backwards , Dan Sinykin’s Big Fiction, and Courtney Thorsson’s The Sisterhood . All three are concerned with the infrastructures that produce and circulate literature: Manshel focuses on literary prizes, Sinykin on conglomeration publishing, and Thorsson on how a group of Black writers enshrined their work in the commercial and academic marketplace. Although vastly different in scale and scope, these books share an acute interest in the infrastructures that enable and disable literary production and literary critique.

Manshel, Sinykin, and Thorsson, in other words, think about literary criticism as an infrastructural method. These critics model a way of approaching critique that resembles the function of infrastructure: opening up new ways to analyze individual texts through careful close reading, while also thinking in the abstract and accumulative about how literary scholarship itself enables or disables different types of relationships to infrastructures.

Morrison and Davis: Radicalizing Autobiography

Actual infrastructures—whether those are universities or bridges—provide the material foundation to perform critique. But infrastructures are not just technical systems. They are also aesthetics and cultural ones that produce very specific articulations of modernity. Thus, Thorsson’s network of like-minded writers and Kornbluh’s call for new ways to approach aesthetic form are both infrastructural.

My argument in this article is that the work of certain authors (including Thorsson, Kornbluh, and others that I detail below) are infrastructur ing critique: building new models of critique, which foreground how infrastructure is not just an object of concern, but a methodology for contemporary scholarship. This provides a way for literary critique to intervene into our understanding of those infrastructures. As a literary method of reading, infrastructural critique becomes a practice that seeks to not just offer rejoinders of existing systems, but to actually build and sustain new ones.

This hasn’t gone unnoticed by those of us working in the humanities, especially those in my own discipline of English. 6 Since 2020 alone, there has been a dizzying proliferation of monographs, special issues, and edited collections, all dedicated to the nexus of literature and infrastructure, like some of the ones I list above.

This, to return to my earlier point, is a useful way to approach infrastructure as an object of critique. But it’s also a methodology that has limited purchase for literary studies.

As a literary method of reading, infrastructural critique becomes a practice that seeks to not just offer rejoinders of existing systems, but to actually build and sustain new ones.

My claim is that infrastructural critique in literary studies understands infrastructure not just as object that needs to be brought into the foreground, but also as method. This is a way of understanding infrastructure as an approach to critique: thinking about how the type of critical practices we undertake enable and disable new patterns of circulation.

We can trace this method of infrastructural critique through the prominence of reading across this emergent field. In a 2021 joint special issue of Resilience and American Literature on the topic, “Infrastructures of Emergency,” Reuben Martens and Pieter Vermeulen provide a useful summary of reading infrastructurally: “The critical task is then not simply to make unseen violence visible but to make it readable in relation to social and cultural frames, personal and collective memories and desires, and political and economic forces that impose their own rhythms on what can be felt, intuited, and apprehended.” 10 Their idea is that readability—as opposed to visibility—becomes a political framework: a way to not just identify, but to become actively involved in the process of changing the way we understand ourselves in relation to both one another and the systems that enmesh us.

This charge is taken up in a special issue of Social Text titled (appropriately) “Reading for Infrastructure,” 11 and in The Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure . In the latter, the editors’ introduction, “Reading Infrastructure,” provides the most explicit detailing of what this methodology looks like: “First, to read is to place an object in context, attuning oneself to its chronology and setting, to test its narrative against itself. Second, reading trains us to assess the social and political production of infrastructural space, a practice that requires imaginative investigation beyond the visible.”

Life inside the Fiction Factory: Dan Sinykin on...

What Fecu does is provide a framework for identifying, diagnosing, and (re)interpreting existing infrastructures, alongside the role that critique plays in disrupting and/or sustaining those relations. This is something that Fanon does, but also that Fecu mimics in alerting us to how acoustic infrastructures (e.g., radio) were instrumental as not just telecommunications technologies but also enabled collective practices of rebellion.

Another camp of critics approaches reading infrastructurally through form. In Lee’s The Racial Railroad , for example, she thinks through how the railroad both creates and consolidates “the stories we tell about race in the first place,” while also gesturing toward an insurgent underside where the infrastructure of race is interrogated and critiqued. The train operates as a particularly important example for its continued prominence in the American imaginary as a tool of environmental exploitation and racialization while also being a site of imagined and actual promise and potentiality.

This is true materially: the train, after all, was a place where some of the earliest class and racial struggles took place, thanks to the Pullman porters. But it is also true at a literary level. Lee looks at how Black and Asian writers turn to the train to map the entrenchment of white supremacy and how it becomes instrumental in their critiques. From Anna Julia Cooper to Colson Whitehead, writers continually use the train as a surrogate for their critiques of systemic racism (a topic that has graced the pages of Public Books previously).

This formalist approach draws from the resources and terminologies of genre critique and is equally prevalent in Hurley’s book, Infrastructures of Apocalypse . “Infrastructure is thus produced by narrative forms,” she writes, “and at the same time it also establishes—at least partially—the kinds of narratives that can play out within its space.”

In these accounts, infrastructures are simultaneously produced by and produce narrative. 13 Infrastructure is equally material and metaphorical. And it’s this movement between these two valences of infrastructure in which literary critique thrives.

Looked at in a certain light, ideas around the infrastructural humanities mirror the omnipresence of turns in critical theory (not to mention the en vogue prefixing of the humanities more generally). Whether it is the environmental, material, affective, digital, or … fill in the blank , there has been a proliferation of ostensible novel frameworks for reading in the past few years. In this sense, it’s hard to shake the feeling that literary studies of infrastructure are just another front in the so-called method wars, where competing practitioners make the case for the primacy of their approach to interpretation.

What troubles me about this emphasis on methodology is that we occasionally lose sight of what we are trying to actually do as literary critics. Matt Seybold and his guests across the best-in-class podcast series “ Criticism Ltd .” have argued that method has become a substitute for actually thinking through the politics of critique. Much of this work has confused cause and effect. In a recent survey of the method wars, Stacey Margolis drives this home: “One of the strongest critiques of the formalist turn—and, by extension, many of these new methodologies—is that it mistakenly equates passively thinking with actively performing political actions.” 14 Observation is not the same as actually acting.

Infrastructural critique in literary studies understands infrastructure not just as object that needs to be brought into the foreground, but also as method.

Let me give an example of what I mean. In Kornbluh’s most recent book (the genuine academic blockbuster) Immediacy, or the Style of Too Late Capitalism , she thinks about how to create the infrastructures to support artistic and critical production. She identifies how the contemporary is defined by its prioritization, above all else, of circulation, from binging entire TV shows to Amazon’s next-day delivery. This, of course, is an infrastructural relation, as Brian Larkin wrote back in 2013: “Infrastructures are matter that enable the movement of other matter.” 16 What this means is that the political also becomes infrastructural: the contested site between flow and blockage. Infrastructure, in this iteration, is the metaphor and method for her own critical thinking.

Kornbluh wants to create new infrastructures for producing theory. Sure, an extemporaneous X-thread can come up with an interesting syllabus almost immediately (a genre Kornbluh practically invented ), but it doesn’t allow for the structural conditions necessary to perform sustained and ongoing criticism. She argues for the importance to theory of “distance, abstraction, movement away ” as opposed to the primacy of immediacy’s “intimacy, immersion, the negation of intercession.” If we are invested in the act of trying to create these metaphorical structures of literary criticism, why wouldn’t we want to figure out how to start building new structures?

Kornbluh concludes by reading Caroline Levine, Sianne Ngai, and Fredric Jameson, describing their collective critical practices as “[committed] to categorical thought, the composition of categories that work for and through scale, impersonality, and hold. They offer interpretation of aesthetics to propound syntheses that can, in turn, capacitate new understandings and other kinds of critical theorizing.”

This, for my money, is an infrastructural critique. She constellates a way of thinking across scales that are named and enabled by and through infrastructure that, in turn, offer the potential space to create new patterns of possibility.

We can trace these patterns in Mark McGurl’s Everything and Less: The Novel in the Age of Amazon . McGurl takes on the complex infrastructure of Amazon and subjects it to generic critique. He explores how its infrastructural and logistical operations are conditioned through various devices of genre: the romance, the epic, and the novel.

In Defense of Imagination

McGurl’s final phrase, “to try,” feels like a particularly useful way to summarize infrastructural critique more generally. These scholars are not just thinking, but also trying: modeling new ways of reading and working with texts that might be able to generate new conditions of circulation.

Today, the infrastructure that supports our research and teaching continues to teeter as it is continuously rescripted by administrators, journalists, and popular culture into a moment of forever crisis. As such, we must continue to identify new ways to try and build something different. This reflective glance inward at infrastructure—at what is “beneath, behind, before” 17 —seems like as good a starting place as any.

Lauren Berlant, “The Commons: Infrastructures for Troubling Times,” Environment and Planning , vol. 34, no. 3 (2016), p. 394. ↩
Andy Hines’s equally excellent Outside Literary Studies: Black Criticism and the University (University of Chicago Press, 2022) traces a similar narrative in the preceding generation of Black radical criticism. ↩
Anna Kornbluh, The Order of Forms: Realism, Formalism, and Social Space (University of Chicago Press, 2019). ↩
Christopher Breu and Jeffrey R. Di Leo, “Theorizing Infrastructure: An Introduction,” symplokē vol. 31, no. 1 – 2 (2023), pp. 1 – 8. ↩
I should be clear here that collapsing infrastructure is not new. What is new is not that infrastructure has changed, but—as anthropologists Nikhil Anand, Akhil Gupta, and Hannah Appel argue in their seminal 2018 collection The Promise of Infrastructure— rather that the crumbling monoliths of infrastructure have been made “visible in the global North in different ways.” And one of these very visible collapses of infrastructure is the university in which so much literary scholarship takes place. It’s also worth flagging that there has been a steady stream of infrastructural critique in literary criticism for nearly two decades, from Patricia Yaeger’s “Dreaming of Infrastructure” ( PMLA , vol. 122, no. 1, 2007) and Kate Marhsall’s monograph Corridor: Media Architectures in American Fiction (University of Minnesota Press, 2013), to the 2015 special issue of Modern Fiction Studies on “Infrastructuralism.” ↩
Last year, the historian Mary Bridges provided a quantitative analysis of how the term “infrastructure” has come to dominate her discipline. “In 1970, the word ‘infrastructure’ appeared in 1.5 percent of history dissertations. By 2021, that number had increased to nearly 40 percent,” she writes. There is something similarly afoot in my own discipline of English. Mary Bridges, “The Infrastructural Turn in Historical Scholarship,” Modern American History , vol. 6, no.1 (2023), pp. 103–120. ↩
Susan Leigh Star, “The Ethnography of Infrastructure,” American Behavioral Scientist , vol. 43, no .3 (1999), p. 377. ↩
Kelly Rich, Nicole Rizzuto, and Susan Zieger, “Reading Infrastructure,” in The Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure: Race, Affect, and Environment (Northwestern University Press, 2023), p. 2. ↩
Jennifer Wenzel (who pens the afterword for both the Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure and a special issue of Social Text dedicated to infrastructure), puts this punchily: “[Infrastructure] cannot be invisible to those charged with its maintenance and repair … and certainly not for marginalized communities consigned to inhabit a state of intimate disconnect—a form of life that entails living in close proximity to infrastructure while at the same time disconnected (or excluded) from its circulatory systems.” Jennifer Wenzel, “Forms of Life: Thinking Fossil Infrastructure and Its Narrative Grammar,” Social Text , vol. 40, no. 4 (2022), p. 159. ↩
Reuben Martens and Pieter Vermeulen, “Infrastructural Prolepsis: Contemporary American Literature and the Future Anterior,” Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities , vol 8, no .1 (2021), p. 18. ↩
Adriana Johnson and Daniel Nemser, “Reading for Infrastructure,” Social Text , vol. 40, no. 4 (2022), pp. 1–16. ↩
Yanie Fecu, “Fine-Tuning Frantz Fanon’s Infrastructural Affects,” in The Aesthetic Life of Infrastructure , p. 82. ↩
Using the techniques of genre study and formal analysis to approach infrastructure is a key intervention by literary scholars. It’s worth noting that this is an amplification of an undercurrent in anthropological scholarship. Star was interested in the literary forms of telecommunication systems and her theoretical progeny—from Brian Larkin to AbdouMaliq Simone—continue to think through the poetics of built physical and social systems of circulation. ↩
Stacey Margolis, “As the World Turns; Or Against Methodology,” American Literary History , vol. 34, no. 1 (2022), p. 259. ↩
Jessica Hurely and Jeffrey Insko, “Introduction: The Infrastructure of Emergency,” American Literature , vol. 93, no. 3 (2021), p. 351. ↩
Brian Larkin, “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure,” Annual Review of Anthropology , vol. 42, no. 3 (2013), p. 329. ↩
Jennifer Wenzel, “Forms of Life: Thinking Fossil Infrastructure and Its Narrative Grammar,” Social Text vol. 40, no. 4 (2022), p. 173. ↩

South Africa: Living in a Future Way Ahead of Our Time

Who Benefits from a “War on Corruption”?

Humans Are Nature’s Eccentrics—Laughing and Crying Show Why

Pieces of the Past at the Doctors House: Glendale, California

Fixing Nostalgia: “Star Trek” Boldly Goes to Less Utopian Futures

Politics—Not Tech—Can Save Black Jobs from AI

IMAGES

Learn How to Write a Critique Essay in 2024
Write Esse: Structure of critique paper
How to Write an Article Critique: Best Tips, Outline and Sample
45 Critique Examples (2024)
How to Write a Critique Paper: Format, Tips, & Critique Paper Example
How To Write A Critique Essay Example

COMMENTS

How To Write a Critique (With Types and an Example)
1. Determine the criteria. Before you write your critique, it's helpful to first determine the criteria for the critique. If it's an assignment, your professor may include a rubric for you to follow. Examine the assignment and ask questions to verify your understanding of the guidelines.
Writing an Article Critique
Before you start writing, you will need to take some steps to get ready for your critique: Choose an article that meets the criteria outlined by your instructor. Read the article to get an understanding of the main idea. Read the article again with a critical eye. As you read, take note of the following: What are the credentials of the author/s?
8.1: What's a Critique and Why Does it Matter?
Critiques evaluate and analyze a wide variety of things (texts, images, performances, etc.) based on reasons or criteria. Sometimes, people equate the notion of "critique" to "criticism," which usually suggests a negative interpretation. These terms are easy to confuse, but I want to be clear that critique and criticize don't mean the ...
QUT cite|write
How to write a critique. Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued. Study the work under discussion. Make notes on key parts of the work. Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work. Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or ...
Critique
Critique is a literary technique that means to critically evaluate a piece of literary work, or a political or philosophical theory in detail. A critique could be a critical essay, an article evaluating a literary piece, or a review. It may be just like a summary that identifies the central issue, raises questions, takes notice of theoretical ...
Essay Critique
An essay critique is an analysis of a work in the context of its intent. It is more than simply a review, a set of likes and dislikes. It is designed to determine if a written work has fulfilled ...
8.1 What Makes a Critique a Critique?
A critique is different from an expository essay which is, as you have learned, a discussion revolving around a topic with multiple sources to support the discussion points. As you can see in Self-Practice Exercise 8.1, depending on the type of critique you are writing, your reference page could include one source only.
Writing a Critique
Writing a Critique. To critique a piece of writing is to do the following: describe: give the reader a sense of the writer's overall purpose and intent. analyze: examine how the structure and language of the text convey its meaning. interpret: state the significance or importance of each part of the text. assess: make a judgment of the work ...
Writing an article CRITIQUE
A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author's argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher's claims. Introduction.
Writing Critiques
Writing Critiques. Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people's work in their academic area.
Writing to Critique
First, you must introduce the author and the title of the work being critiqued. This information is often in the first sentence of a critique's introduction, but so long as the info is at or near the top you are fine. Second, state the author's main point (whether in the entire work or the section of the work you are critiquing).
Critique vs. Criticism: How to Write a Critique Correctly
None of this is to say that you shouldn't commend a piece of work if it truly is fantastic or that you should not highlight the gems within a work. Again: constructive criticism is honest criticism. If a work is so well-crafted in your eyes that nothing worse than grammatical hiccups are present, tell the writer.
How to Write a Good Critique Essay
Describe Author and Work. Describe the work and its creator in the first paragraph. Do not assume that readers know the work or author prior to reading the critique. It is necessary to place the work in context so the reader has a sense of what is happening. Determine if the text is a first outing for the author or the latest in a long series.
Writing a Critique Paper: 7 Easy Steps
Step-by-Step Procedure in Writing a Critique Paper. The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper. Introduce the Discussion Topic. Analyze. Interpret. Assess or Evaluate. Format of Presenting the Critique Paper. Introduction. Body.
How to Write a Critique Paper: Format, Tips, & Critique Essay Examples
Step 3: Drafting the Essay. Finally, it is time to draft your essay. First of all, you'll need to write a brief overview of the text you're analyzing. Then, formulate a thesis statement - one sentence that will contain your opinion of the work under scrutiny. After that, make a one-paragraph summary of the text.
Critique
Critique can hit close to home, but remember to separate your work from your self-worth. Breathe, listen, and manage your emotions so they don't manage you. Understand the Intentions 👀. Different critiques serve different purposes. Know whether the critique aims to guide you (formative) or evaluate your end product (summative).
PDF The Critique Essay
the last minute). If your instructor does not want you to restate your thesis, simply sum everything up. A conclusion is necessary because you don't want to "hang up" on your reader. Like a phone call, you say good-bye in your essay. To do this, you summarize your arguments for or against the effectiveness of the article.
SCC Research Guides: Writing a Critique : Parts of a Critique
Give a summary of the source you are critiquing. Don't spend too much time on your summary, but give enough information so that a reader who is unfamiliar with your source will know what your source is about. Include information such as: The name of the source or event. What kind of source it is (book, film, lecture, etc.)
How to Write a Critical Essay
A critical essay is a form of academic writing that analyzes, interprets, and/or evaluates a text. In a critical essay, an author makes a claim about how particular ideas or themes are conveyed in a text, then supports that claim with evidence from primary and/or secondary sources. In casual conversation, we often associate the word "critical ...
Essay Writing Critique
A critique, also known as a review, an assessment, or an evaluation, is much less personal than a response paper, although it does entail responding to a text. In a critique, you evaluate the quality or merit of a text, based on a set of clearly defined criteria. These criteria will vary depending on the type of text you are evaluating.
Critiques Definition and Examples
A critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a text, production, or performance—either one's own (a self-critique) or someone else's. In composition, a critique is sometimes called a response paper. When written by another expert in the field, a critique can also be called a peer review. Peer reviews are done to decide whether to accept ...
CRITIQUE Definition & Meaning
Critique definition: an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review.. See examples of CRITIQUE used in a sentence.
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 ...
Essay Critique Guidelines
First, make sure that you have reviewed the description of the essay mode in the Essay Assignment Guidelines. Use at least one or two of these when responding to an essay. Do not simply answer yes or no; offer specific evidence from the text and elaborate on the reasons behind your answer.
How to Writ a Play Critique
man or Arial is preferable)• Single spacing within paragraphs, double. • Include a cover page with your name and class. e: Critique of NAME OF PLAY*You need to use a cl. *Introduction (1 section):• Include the title of the play, name of the playwright, the Theater where the play was held, the name of the director, and.
What Is the Infrastructure of Critique?
When I say that infrastructure itself is the object of critique, I mean that an increasing number of critics are interested in the literary life of material infrastructures. Books like Julia Lee's The Racial Railroad and Jessica Hurley's Infrastructures of Apocalypse , for example, consider how railroads and nuclear power create new ...

How to write a critique

Example template

Introduction

Critical evaluation

Reference list

Further information

Global links and information

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

Definition of Critique

Example #3: Hamlet: Poem Unlimited (By Harold Bloom)

Example #4: The Daily Telegraph (By Victoria Lambert)

Function of Critique

8.1 What Makes a Critique a Critique?

What Is a Critique?

How a Critique Is Different

The Purpose of Critiquing

Elements of a Critique

Share This Book

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article CRITIQUE

Writing Critiques

Types of critique

Published book review

Manuscript review

Language strategies for critiquing

Offering Praise and Criticism

Offering suggestions

UMGC Effective Writing Center Writing to Critique

Introduction

Personal Information

Critique vs. Criticism: How to Write a Good Critique, with Examples

Understanding critique vs. criticism

How to write a great critique in 3 steps

1. If you’re genuine, you’ll be constructive

2. No jerks

3. Don’t be too timid

The difference between a critique vs. criticism is whether it’s constructive

Considering authorial intent while critique writing

1. Context is king

2. The unintended/unspoken

3. Accounting for genre and intended audience

4. Don’t pretend to be a non-writer

Understanding intent is part of a good critique

What makes a good critique?

Immerse yourself in all sorts of stories to get better at critiquing

Steal critiquing techniques from smart people–yourself included

A reading list to improving your critique writing skills

The value of criticism and critiquing

Appendix I: “Line edits” and “critiques”

Appendix II: The Benefits and Limits of Critique Groups

Appendix III: Still confused?

Related articles

How to Write a Good Critique Essay

How to Write a Close Reading Essay

Describe Author and Work

State Your Opinion

Related Articles

How to Write an Introduction to an Analytical Essay

How to Write Prose Commentary

Guidelines for a Reflection & Summary Paper

How to Write a Summary of an Autobiography

How to Write a Dissertation Summary

How to Construct a Rationale Statement

How to Write a Thesis Statement for "Robinson Crusoe"

How to Write an Eighth Grade Book Report

Writing a Critique Paper: Seven Easy Steps

Table of Contents

The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper

Introduce the Discussion Topic

Assess or Evaluate

Format of Presenting the Critique Paper

Introduction

Related Reading

Related Posts

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

How to Write a Critique Paper: Format, Tips, & Critique Essay Examples

💁 What Is a Critique Paper?

👀 Critical Essay Types

👣 How to Write a Critique Essay: Main Steps

Step 1: Critical Reading