Critical Review

The phrase "critical review" has two important, defining features. First, a critical review must be a "review," which means that it has to provide the readers with an overview of the important parts of the article. That is, it must provide a focused summary -- not just a "summary," but a "focused" summary. What that suggests is that the writer slants the review toward what he or she deems to be the noteworthy parts of the article. Second, the review must be "critical." By "critical," I DO NOT mean nitpicky negative; rather, I mean focusing on both the strengths and weaknesses of the work.

     In my view, a good critical review begins with a summary of the article that gives the reader a general understanding both of all that the article covers and a suggestion of what the writer thinks is most important in the article. This summary should probably take about one third of the writer's space.

The good critical review then moves into the critique. It doesn't matter whether it begins with the negatives or the positives, though eventually it should adequately represent both.

Overall, too, the good critical review will not only represent the writer's opinions, but clearly identify those opinions.

These reviews are to be reviews of scholarly articles, not magazine or newspaper articles. The articles must have been written by scholars in the field of the article and must be firmly grounded in scholarly practices -- that is, they must be "research-based." (If you get your article off the web, make sure -- by checking with me ahead of time, if necessary -- that it is as scholarly article.