Writing a critique

What is a critique?
A critique is a genre of academic writing that briefly summarises and critically evaluates a work or concept.
Critiques can be used to carefully analyse a variety of works such as:
 Creative works – novels, exhibits, film, images, poetry
 Research – monographs, journal articles, systematic reviews, theories
 Media – news reports, feature articles
Like an essay, a critique uses a formal, academic writing style and has a clear structure, that is, an introduction,
body and conclusion. However, the body of a critique includes a summary of the work and a detailed
evaluation. The purpose of an evaluation is to gauge the usefulness or impact of a work in a particular field.
Why do we write critiques?
Writing a critique on a work helps us to develop:
 A knowledge of the work’s subject area or related works.
 An understanding of the work’s purpose, intended audience, development of argument, structure of evidence or
creative style.
 A recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of the work.
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 context.
There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or blackboard
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.
Summary
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.
Conclusion
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.

Checklist for a critique

Have I:
 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 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 - some general criteria for evaluating works
University of Toronto - The book review or article critique
http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/critique.jsp

Critique of a Research Article

The goal of this activity is to give you an opportunity to apply

whatever you learned in this course in evaluating a research
paper. You might have done some article summaries or even critical
evaluation of some resources. However, this activity is unique
because you evaluate a research article from a methodology
perspective.
For this assignment you summarize and evaluate the attached educational
research article. After completing your critique you should submit:
1. Your article critique including a summary of the article.
2- You fill out and send the attached form.

This assignment could be done individually or in groups of 2 students. In the

summary section, you should write a brief (up to 500 words) summary of
the article inyour own words. Don’t use copy and paste try to rephrase. This
will be a good practice for your final project’s literature review. In the
critique section, you evaluate the article using the following grading criteria.

Grading criteria for research critique

The critique part should be 2-5 pages (750-2000 words) similar to

the following examples in APA style. Your critique should be longer
than your summary and you pay special attention to the design
and procedure. Your grade on this assignment is based on your
answer the following questions.
There is a long list of questions. You don’t have to address all
questions. However, you should address highlighted questions.
Some questions are relevant to this article some are not. I listed so
many questions simply because I’d like you to learn what to look for
in evaluating a research article.
The format of your paper should NOT be like a Q & A list. Instead,
you should integrate your answers into an essay format similar to
the given examples.

Main questions including:

 What is (are) the research problem(s)?
 What is (are) the research question(s) (or hypothesis)?
 Is the research important? Why?
 In your own words what methods and procedures were used?
Evaluate the methods and procedures.
 Describe the sample used in this study.
 Describe the reliability and validity of all the instruments used.
  What type of research is this? Explain.
 How was the data analyzed?
 What is (are) the major finding(s)? are these findings
important?
 What do you suggest to improve this research?

Introduction

Problem
1. Is there a statement of the problem?
2. Is the problem “researchable”? That is, can it be
investigated through the collection and analysis of data?
3. Is background information on the problem presented?
4. Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?
5. Does the problem statement indicate the variables of
interest and the specific relationship between those
variables which are investigated? When necessary, are
variables directly or operationally defined?

Review of Related Literature

1. Is the review comprehensive?
2. Are all cited references relevant to the problem under
investigation?
3. Are most of the sources primary, i.e., are there only a
few or no secondary sources?
4. Have the references been critically analyzed and the
results of various studies compared and contrasted, i.e., is
the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations?
5. Does the review conclude with a brief summary of the
literature and its implications for the problem investigated?
6. Do the implications discussed form an empirical or
theoretical rationale for the hypotheses which follow?

Hypotheses
 1. Are specific questions to be answered listed or specific
hypotheses to be tested stated?
2. Does each hypothesis state an expected relationship or
difference?
3. If necessary, are variables directly or operationally
defined?
4. Is each hypothesis testable?

Method
Subjects
1. Are the size and major characteristics of the population
studied described?
2. If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the
sample clearly described?
3. Is the method of sample selection described one that is
likely to result in a representative, unbiased sample?
4. Did the researcher avoid the use of volunteers?
5. Are the size and major characteristics of the sample
described?
6. Does the sample size meet the suggested guideline for
minimum sample size appropriate for the method of
research represented?

Instruments
1. Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments
(or measurements) used?
2. Is each instrument described in terms of purpose and
content?
3. Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the
intended variables?
4. Is evidence presented that indicates that each instrument
is appropriate for the sample under study?
5. Is instrument validity discussed and coefficients given if
appropriate?
6. Is reliability discussed in terms of type and size of
reliability coefficients?
7. If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?
 8. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study,
are the procedures involved in its development and
validation described?
9. If an instrument was developed specifically for the study,
are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation
procedures fully described?

Design and Procedure

1. Is the design appropriate for answering the questions or
testing the hypotheses of the study?
2. Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit
them to be replicated by another researcher?
3. If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and
results described as well as its impact on the subsequent
study?
4. Are the control procedures described?
5. Did the researcher discuss or account for any potentially
confounding variables that he or she was unable to control
for?

Results
1. Are appropriate descriptive or inferential statistics presented?
2. Was the probability level, α, at which the results of the tests of
significance were evaluated,
specified in advance of the data analyses?
3. If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the
researcher avoided violating the
required assumptions for parametric tests?
4. Are the tests of significance described appropriate, given the
hypotheses and design of the
study?
5. Was every hypothesis tested?
6. Are the tests of significance interpreted using the appropriate
degrees of freedom?
7. Are the results clearly presented?
8. Are the tables and figures (if any) well organized and easy to
understand?
9. Are the data in each table and figure described in the text?

Discussion (Conclusions and Recommendation)

1. Is each result discussed in terms of the original hypothesis to
which it relates?
2. Is each result discussed in terms of its agreement or
disagreement with previous results
obtained by other researchers in other studies?
3. Are generalizations consistent with the results?
4. Are the possible effects of uncontrolled variables on the results
discussed?
5. Are theoretical and practical implications of the findings
discussed?
6. Are recommendations for future action made?
7. Are the suggestions for future action based on practical
significance or on statistical
significance only, i.e., has the author avoided confusing
practical and statistical
significance?
8. Are recommendations for future research made?

Help
Here is a hint on how to evaluate an article.
Use this resource for writing and APA style.

Examples (please note some examples are longer than what is

expected for this article)

 Good example

 Poor example

More examples

 Original article
  Article critique

 Click here to see an example of research critique (see

the original paper).
 Click here to see a second example of research critique.
http://web.csulb.edu/~arezaei/EDP520/critique.htm

Essay Critique
Guidelines

Study English at Goshen College.

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.

1. 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.).

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. Correctness: Correctness refers to grammar, punctuation, and form of the essay.

You do not need to know the exact grammatical term or rule to know when a
sentence is not correct. Even though you may not know the term dangling
modifier, you could identify that the following sentence is not correct:

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.”]

Feel free to mark the essay at the point of the error with a specific
recommendation (“run-on sentence”) or a general comment (“this sentence
sounds wrong to me”). You can also simply put an “X” by any sentence that
seems incorrect. See the back of WR for commonly used Correction Symbols.

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:
1. Does the writer have a clear but understated purpose to the essay?

2. Does it avoid being overly moralistic or heavy-handed?

3. Does the essay contain suspense or tension that is resolved in some way?

4. 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.?

5. Does the essay make good use of concrete description, anecdote, and dialogue?

6. Does the essay help you to feel the emotions rather than just describe the
emotions of the author?

7. Does the essay reveal a significant aspect of the writer’s personality?

8. Does the writer seem authentic?

9. Is this a passionate piece? Is it creative?

Critical Review Critique

1. Does a direct thesis convey both the subject and the reviewer’s value judgment?

2. 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.

3. Does the essay clearly identify relevant criteria for evaluation? Are they
appropriate, believable, and consistent?

4. Are any important features of the reviewed subject omitted?

5. Logos (logic, content): Does the essay provide sufficient, relevant, and
interesting details and examples to adequately inform and entertain?

6. Ethos (author): Does the author’s judgment seem sound and convincing?

7. Pathos (emotional appeals): Does the author responsibly and effectively utilize
emotional appeals to the audience?
 8. 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:

1. Is topic clearly explained and sufficiently focused?

2. Does the content fit the audience?

3. Is it organized effectively?

4. Are definitions clear?

5. Are other strategies (classification, comparison/contrast, analysis) used

effectively?

6. Are sources used sufficiently, effectively, and appropriately?

You might also assess the following criteria:

1. Does the author utilize vivid detail, interesting examples, and lively language?

2. Does the essay avoid emphasizing judgment over explanation?

3. Does the essay have a clear focus or implied thesis?

Comparison/Contrast Essay Critique

1. Is the purpose for a comparison or contrast evident and convincing?

2. Does the essay identify significant and parallel characteristics for comparison?

3. Does the author adequately explain, analyze, or reflect on the comparison or

contrast?

4. Does the author provide appropriate transitions words to indicate comparison and
contrast?

5. Is the treatment of each side of the comparison or contrast in balance?

6. Does the essay provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details?

Feature Article Critique
1. Does this article interest you? Do you think it will interest the intended audience?
Can you suggest ways to increase interest?

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. Is the subject presented vividly with sensory images, graphic detail, and figurative
language? Do you have suggestions of details or images to include?

5. Does the writer use an appropriate mixture of anecdote, quotation, description,

and explanation? Would more or less of one of these improve the essay?

6. 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

1. Is the thesis clear, argumentative, and effective? Why or why not?

2. Are the topic and thesis are reasonable for the assignment, audience, and context
of the essay?

3. Does the author define his or her terms and provide sufficient background
information? What ideas or terms are undefined or inadequately explained?

4. Is the thesis supported by clear reasons? Are the reasons clearly worded and
supported sufficiently?

5. Do the reasons fit logically together and are they placed in the right order?

6. Does the author adequately address the opposition? What is another opposing
argument he/she should or could have addressed?

7. Has the author done adequate research?

 8. Are the works cited adequately introduced and explained before citing from them?

9. 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?

10. Is the writer clearly in charge, naturally introducing and interacting with sources
rather than merely reporting on them?

11. Do you find the argument convincing? What might you add or omit?

Business Writing Critique

Memo

1. Does the memo begin with the most important information?

2. Does the memo build rapport by involving the reader in opening paragraph?

3. Does the memo provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details? Is it focused
and brief?

4. Does the memo focus each paragraph on one idea?

5. Is the memo informed, accurate, demonstrating the author’s grasp of the

situation?

6. Is the final paragraph calling for a specific action? Is it brief? Does it build good
will?

7. Is the memo form correct, with concise subject line, initialed name, correct
spacing?

8. Is the information arranged (indentations and numbering) in a way that makes it

easy to skim and still get central information?
Cover letter

1. 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?

2. Does the second paragraph highlight specific strengths, special abilities, or

features of the résumé to be noted?
 3. Does the third paragraph make a specific request of the reader or address what
action is to be taken?

4. Does the letter provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details to make the
request convincing?

5. Is the letter brief and focused? What elements could be eliminated?

6. Does the writer achieve his or her purpose? Does it make you want to consider
the résumé more carefully?

7. Is the tone of the letter courteous without being too formal, relaxed without being
too familiar?

8. 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”?
Résumé

1. Does the résumé contain the necessary features for the position (name/address,
position desired, education, work experience, achievements, relevant personal
information, references)?

2. Does the résumé contain only essential, relevant information for the position
required?

3. Does the résumé emphasize the applicant’s strengths?

4. 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.)?

5. What additional information might you like to have about this applicant?

6. If you were leading an interview based on this résumé, what are two questions
you might ask?

7. Does the résumé look neat (appropriate spacing, clear headings, good quality
paper)?

8. Is the résumé easy to read?

9. Is the information presented as concisely as possible?

 10. 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)?
https://www.goshen.edu/academics/english/essay-critique-guidelines/