how do you start a critique essay

Essay Papers Writing Online

How to craft an effective critique essay – a step-by-step guide to capturing readers’ attention, providing insightful analysis, and offering constructive feedback.

Evaluating someone else’s writing can be a challenging task, but with the right tools and approach, you can become a skillful critic in no time. Whether you’re analyzing a piece of literature, an article, or a research paper, a critique essay allows you to delve into the elements that make up a strong written work.

By honing your critical thinking skills, you’ll be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a piece and provide insightful feedback. Through this process, you’ll not only improve your own writing abilities but also enhance your understanding and appreciation of the written word.

In this comprehensive article, we will equip you with the essential techniques and strategies needed to write an effective critique essay. From analyzing the structure and organization of a piece to evaluating the author’s arguments and evidence, you’ll learn how to assess a work’s strengths and weaknesses with precision and clarity.

What is a Critique Essay and Why is it Important?

A critique essay is a type of academic writing that involves analyzing and evaluating a piece of work, such as a book, film, artwork, or research paper. Unlike a simple summary or review, a critique essay goes beyond providing a surface-level examination of the work and delves into an in-depth analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, and overall value.

But why is writing a critique essay important? Well, there are several reasons. Firstly, it allows you to develop critical thinking skills by carefully examining and assessing the merits of a work. This type of analysis helps you become more discerning and thoughtful in your judgments, which is a valuable skill in many aspects of life.

In addition, writing a critique essay encourages you to become an active participant in the intellectual discourse surrounding a particular topic or field. By engaging with a work and providing your own analysis, you are contributing to the ongoing conversation and expanding the collective understanding of the subject matter.

Furthermore, a critique essay can serve as a useful tool for the creator of the work being critiqued. Constructive criticism can provide valuable insights and suggestions for improvement, helping the creator gain a fresh perspective and refine their skills.

Ultimately, the importance of writing a critique essay lies in its ability to foster critical thinking, contribute to intellectual discourse, and provide constructive feedback. Whether you are a student honing your analytical skills or a professional offering insights in your field, learning how to effectively critique a work is a valuable and essential skill.

Choosing a Topic for Your Critique Essay

When it comes to writing a critique essay, the first and most important step is choosing a topic that is both interesting and suitable for critique. The topic you choose will determine the direction and focus of your essay, as well as the arguments and evidence you will present. It is crucial to select a topic that you are passionate about and have a strong opinion on, as this will make the writing process more enjoyable and engaging.

When considering potential topics for your critique essay, it can be helpful to brainstorm a list of subjects that you have recently encountered in your studies, personal life, or current events. This can include books, movies, artworks, scientific studies, political speeches, or social issues. Reflect on your experiences and think about which topics have sparked your interest or elicited an emotional response.

Once you have a list of potential topics, narrow it down to one that you feel confident in critiquing. Consider the availability of resources and research materials related to the topic, as well as the relevance and significance of the subject matter. It is important to choose a topic that is not too broad or too narrow, but one that allows for a thorough analysis and evaluation.

Furthermore, when selecting a topic for your critique essay, consider the potential audience and the purpose of your writing. Are you writing for a specific academic or professional audience, or for a general readership? Is your goal to persuade, inform, or entertain? Understanding your audience and purpose will help you choose a topic that is relevant, engaging, and appropriate for your intended readers.

In conclusion, the process of choosing a topic for your critique essay requires careful consideration and reflection. By selecting a topic that you are passionate about, narrowing down your options, and considering the audience and purpose of your writing, you can ensure that your critique essay is engaging, informative, and well-structured.

Effective Methods for Analyzing and Evaluating the Work

When it comes to critiquing a piece of work, it is important to employ effective methods for analyzing and evaluating the work. These methods allow you to objectively assess the strengths and weaknesses of the work while providing constructive feedback.

One method for analyzing the work is to carefully examine the overall structure and organization. This involves evaluating the flow of ideas and the logical progression of the work. Pay attention to how well the work introduces and supports its main argument or thesis statement. Look for any inconsistencies or gaps in the logic and assess the effectiveness of the transitions between ideas.

Additionally, it is important to assess the use of evidence and examples in the work. Look for both quantitative and qualitative evidence that supports the main argument. Evaluate the credibility and relevance of the sources cited and determine if they strengthen the overall argument. Consider the quality of the examples provided and how well they illustrate the key points of the work.

Another critical aspect to evaluate in the work is the clarity and effectiveness of the writing style. Assess the use of language, considering factors such as clarity, conciseness, and precision. Look for any instances of wordiness or ambiguity and consider how well the writer communicates their ideas. Pay attention to the use of tone and voice and evaluate if they are appropriate for the intended audience.

Furthermore, it is essential to consider the originality and creativity of the work. Analyze whether the ideas presented are innovative and unique, or if they rely heavily on existing research and ideas. Evaluate the extent to which the writer brings a fresh perspective or contributes new insights to the topic. Consider the level of critical thinking and depth of analysis demonstrated in the work.

Finally, it is crucial to provide constructive feedback when evaluating the work. Identify specific strengths and weaknesses and provide evidence to support your analysis. Offer suggestions for improvement and recommend areas where the writer can further develop their ideas or arguments. Remember to maintain a balance between positive and negative feedback to help the writer grow and improve their work.

• Analyze the overall structure and organization of the work
• Assess the use of evidence and examples
• Evaluate the clarity and effectiveness of the writing style
• Analyze the originality and creativity of the ideas presented
• Provide constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement

By utilizing these effective methods for analyzing and evaluating the work, you will be able to provide a comprehensive critique that offers valuable insights and helps the writer enhance their work.

Tips for Writing a Strong and Persuasive Critique Essay

When crafting a critique essay, it is essential to adopt a strong and persuasive writing style to effectively convey your thoughts and opinions. By employing certain techniques and considerations, you can enhance the impact of your critique and make it more persuasive. This section will provide valuable tips to help you write a compelling critique essay.

First and foremost, clarity and conciseness are key. Make sure your critique is written in a clear and straightforward manner, avoiding any unnecessary jargon or complex language. This will ensure that your ideas are easily understood by your readers, allowing them to fully grasp your perspective.

Additionally, providing evidence and examples is crucial to strengthen your critique. Back up your opinions with credible sources, such as research studies, statistical data, or expert opinions. This will make your arguments more persuasive and lend credibility to your critique.

It is also important to offer a balanced perspective in your critique. While expressing your own views, be sure to acknowledge and address counterarguments or differing opinions. This will demonstrate your ability to consider multiple perspectives and make your critique more comprehensive and well-rounded.

Using persuasive language and rhetorical devices can significantly enhance the impact of your critique. Employ techniques such as persuasive appeals (ethos, logos, pathos), rhetorical questions, metaphors, and analogies to captivate your readers and engage them on an emotional and intellectual level.

Structuring your critique in a logical and organized manner is another essential aspect. Break down your critique into distinct sections, such as introduction, body paragraphs discussing various aspects of the subject, and a conclusion summarizing your main points and reinforcing your overall perspective. This will make your critique more coherent and reader-friendly.

Consider your target audience when writing your critique. Tailor your language, tone, and style to resonate with your intended readers. Adapt your arguments and examples to align with their interests, values, and beliefs. This will make your critique more relatable and persuasive to your specific audience.

Lastly, support your arguments with credible sources. Incorporating research findings, expert opinions, or firsthand experiences will strengthen the validity of your critique and provide additional weight to your arguments. This will make your critique more persuasive and enhance its overall impact.

By following these tips, you can ensure that your critique essay is not only strong but also persuasive. By employing clear and concise language, providing evidence and examples, offering a balanced perspective, using persuasive language and rhetorical devices, structuring effectively, considering your target audience, and supporting your arguments with credible sources, you can craft a compelling critique essay that effectively conveys your thoughts and opinions.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, unlock success with a comprehensive business research paper example guide, unlock your writing potential with writers college – transform your passion into profession, “unlocking the secrets of academic success – navigating the world of research papers in college”, master the art of sociological expression – elevate your writing skills in sociology.

• 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

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 28-May-2024
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

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

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.

Table of Contents

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!

Related Reading

Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological bulletin , 105 (1), 51.

Related Posts

How to write the results and discussion: 9 tips, hybrid learning vs online classes: 37 key points to ponder, researcher’s euphoria: discovering something new, about the author, patrick regoniel.

Dr. Regoniel, a hobbyist writer, served as consultant to various environmental research and development projects covering issues and concerns on climate change, coral reef resources and management, economic valuation of environmental and natural resources, mining, and waste management and pollution. He has extensive experience on applied statistics, systems modelling and analysis, an avid practitioner of LaTeX, and a multidisciplinary web developer. He leverages pioneering AI-powered content creation tools to produce unique and comprehensive articles in this website.

SimplyEducate.Me Privacy Policy

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

How to Write a Critique in Five Paragraphs

Last Updated: January 20, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Diane Stubbs . Diane Stubbs is a Secondary English Teacher with over 22 years of experience teaching all high school grade levels and AP courses. She specializes in secondary education, classroom management, and educational technology. Diane earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Delaware and a Master of Education from Wesley College. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 975,997 times.

A critique is usually written in response to a creative work, such as a novel, a film, poetry, or a painting. However, critiques are also sometimes assigned for research articles and media items, such as news articles or features. A critique is slightly different than a traditional 5-paragraph theme, as it is usually focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing, rather than making a strictly analytical argument about it. Organizing your critique into 5 paragraphs can help you structure your thoughts.

Laying the Groundwork

• Does the creator clearly state her/his main point or goal? If not, why do you think that is?
• Who do you think is the creator’s intended audience? This can be crucial to determining the success of a work; for example, a movie intended for young children might work well for its intended audience but not for adult viewers.
• What reactions do you have when reading or viewing this work? Does it provoke emotional responses? Do you feel confused?
• What questions does the work make you think of? Does it suggest other avenues of exploration or observation to you?

• For example, if you're critiquing a research article about a new treatment for the flu, a little research about other flu treatments currently available could be helpful to you when situating the work in context.
• As another example, if you're writing about a movie, you might want to briefly discuss the director's other films, or other important movies in this particular genre (indie, action, drama, etc.).
• Your school or university library is usually a good place to start when conducting research, as their databases provide verified, expert sources. Google Scholar can also be a good source for research.

Writing the Introductory Paragraph

• For a work of fiction or a published work of journalism or research, this information is usually available in the publication itself, such as on the copyright page for a novel.
• For a film, you may wish to refer to a source such as IMDb to get the information you need. If you're critiquing a famous artwork, an encyclopedia of art would be a good place to find information on the creator, the title, and important dates (date of creation, date of exhibition, etc.).

• For example, if you’re assessing a research article in the sciences, a quick overview of its place in the academic discussion could be useful (e.g., “Professor X’s work on fruit flies is part of a long research tradition on Blah Blah Blah.”)
• If you are evaluating a painting, giving some brief information on where it was first displayed, for whom it was painted, etc., would be useful.
• If you are assessing a novel, it could be good to talk about what genre or literary tradition the novel is written within (e.g., fantasy, High Modernism, romance). You may also want to include details about the author’s biography that seem particularly relevant to your critique.
• For a media item, such as a news article, consider the social and/or political context of the media outlet the item came from (e.g., Fox News, BBC, etc.) and of the issue it is dealing with (e.g., immigration, education, entertainment).

• The authors of research articles will often state very clearly in the abstract and in the introduction to their work what they are investigating, often with sentences that say something like this: "In this article we provide a new framework for analyzing X and argue that it is superior to previous methods because of reason A and reason B."
• For creative works, you may not have an explicit statement from the author or creator about their purpose, but you can often infer one from the context the work occupies. For example, if you were examining the movie The Shining, you might argue that the filmmaker Stanley Kubrick's goal is to call attention to the poor treatment of Native Americans because of the strong Native American themes present in the movie. You could then present the reasons why you think that in the rest of the essay.

• For example, if you were writing about The Shining, you could summarize the main points this way: "Stanley Kubrick uses strong symbolism, such as the placement of the movie's hotel on an Indian burial ground, the naming of the hotel "Overlook," and the constant presence of Native American artwork and representation, to call viewers' attention to America's treatment of Native Americans in history."

• For a research article, you will probably want to focus your thesis on whether the research and discussion supported the authors' claims. You may also wish to critique the research methodology, if there are obvious flaws present.
• For creative works, consider what you believe the author or creator's goal was in making the work, and then present your assessment of whether or not they achieved that goal.

Writing the 3 Body Paragraphs

• If you have three clear points about your work, you can organize each paragraph by point. For example, if you are analyzing a painting, you might critique the painter’s use of color, light, and composition, devoting a paragraph to each topic.
• If you have more than three points about your work, you can organize each paragraph thematically. For example, if you are critiquing a movie and want to talk about its treatment of women, its screenwriting, its pacing, its use of color and framing, and its acting, you might think about the broader categories that these points fall into, such as “production” (pacing, color and framing, screenwriting), “social commentary” (treatment of women), and “performance” (acting).
• Alternatively, you could organize your critique by “strengths” and “weaknesses.” The aim of a critique is not merely to criticize, but to point out what the creator or author has done well and what s/he has not.

• For example, if you are critiquing a song, you could consider how the beat or tone of the music supports or detracts from the lyrics.
• For a research article or a media item, you may want to consider questions such as how the data was gathered in an experiment, or what method a journalist used to discover information.

• Does the author use primary sources (e.g., historical documents, interviews, etc.)? Secondary sources? Quantitative data? Qualitative data? Are these sources appropriate for the argument?
• Has evidence been presented fairly, without distortion or selectivity?
• Does the argument proceed logically from the evidence used?

• If the work is a creative work, consider whether it presents its ideas in an original or interesting way. You can also consider whether it engages with key concepts or ideas in popular culture or society.
• If the work is a research article, you can consider whether the work enhances your understanding of a particular theory or idea in its discipline. Research articles often include a section on “further research” where they discuss the contributions their research has made and what future contributions they hope to make.

Writing the Conclusion Paragraph and References

Sample Critiques

Community Q&A

• Before you begin writing, take notes while you are watching or reading the subject of your critique. Keep to mind certain aspects such as how it made you feel. What was your first impression? With deeper examination, what is your overall opinion? How did you come to this opinion? Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• While the 5-paragraph form can work very well to help you organize your ideas, some instructors do not allow this type of essay. Be sure that you understand the assignment. If you’re not sure whether a 5-paragraph format is acceptable to your teacher, ask! Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Avoid using first and second person pronouns such as, “you”, “your”, “I”, “my”, or “mine.” State your opinion objectively for a more credible approach. Thanks Helpful 39 Not Helpful 14

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-write-a-critique
• ↑ https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/writing-article-critique
• ↑ https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/writing-well/critique.html
• ↑ http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/book-review
• ↑ https://www.hunter.cuny.edu/rwc/handouts/the-writing-process-1/invention/Writing-a-Critique
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/esl/resources/writing-critiques/

About This Article

To write a 5-paragraph critique, provide the basic information about the work you're critiquing in the first paragraph, including the author, when it was published, and what its key themes are. Then, conclude this paragraph with a statement of your opinion of the work. Next, identify 3 central positive or negative issues in the work and write a paragraph about each one. For example, you could focus on the color, light, and composition of a painting. In the final paragraph, state your overall assessment of the work, and give reasons to back it up. For tips on how to take notes on the piece your critiquing, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Lura Norton

Feb 7, 2017

Did this article help you?

Ahmed Misry

Sep 30, 2017

Celia Seecharan

Feb 11, 2017

Sep 23, 2017

Lusady Taylor

Jul 28, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

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

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

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

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.

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

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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:...

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...

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.

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...

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...

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...

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!

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

Related articles

How Many Words are in a Novel? Make Sure Your Word Count Meets Industry Expectations

How to Become a Beta Reader

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

Screenplay Format: How to Format a Script, with Examples

What Distinguishes Literary Nonfiction From Traditional Nonfiction

Manuscript Format: How to Format a Novel, with Examples

How to Structure and Write an Effective Critique Paper

Critique papers are an essential part of academic writing, especially in the fields of humanities and social sciences. They involve analyzing a piece of work and objectively evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. Writing a critique paper can be challenging, requiring careful reading, research, and analysis. Yet, it is possible to produce a high-quality essay with careful planning and attention to detail.

This article will teach you how to write an article critique by explaining the types of critique essays, their structure, and the steps involved in how to write a critique essay. The article also provides essay tips for producing a well-written and effective critique.

What is a Critique Paper?

A critique paper is an academic paper as a response to a body of work, such as a play, concept, scholarly article, poetry, book, or research paper. Its purpose is to objectively assess the work in question, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. But also to provide a detailed analysis of its content, structure, and methodology.

This kind of essay can be one of the trickiest assignments, and not everyone can produce a well-scrutinized, original piece of writing. That’s why many students reach for assistance from analytical essay writing services that guarantee to handle the job with the help of professional writers and experts. These services proved to be of high quality and effective support to many schoolers who chose to try them in a variety of different disciplines.

Knowing how to write an article critique requires careful reading, analysis, and an evaluative approach. A well-written critique paper example demonstrates the writer’s ability to analyze and evaluate works. It should also be organized logically, guiding the reader through the analysis. Additionally, writers should be aware of their biases and assumptions and strive to critique objectively. On a final note, it’s essential to review the guidelines and follow the required structure. This is to ensure that the article critique meets the assignment’s expectations.

Types of Critical Essays

There are several types of essays of this kind, each with its approach and focus. To follow we have a list of the most common ones.

Descriptive

A descriptive critical essay combines elements of descriptive writing with a thorough analysis. In this type of essay, the writer describes a particular work in detail and then evaluates it based on certain criteria. They can provide a deep and insightful understanding of the work using sensory details and descriptive language.

An evaluative essay consists of a personal judgment to evaluate the value or effectiveness of a particular work or idea. In this type of essay, the writer analyzes the work and expresses their opinion on its merits or shortcomings. At the same time, they must avoid personal bias and focus on facts rather than one’s opinions or feelings. However, it’s also essential to provide a personal perspective and interpretation of the work as long as it’s supported by evidence.

Interpretive

This type of essay involves analyzing and interpreting the meaning and significance of the work being evaluated. It delves deeper into the themes, symbolism, and underlying conveyed messages. When writing an interpretive essay, it’s important to be clear and concise. Avoid confusing the reader by using jargon or unnecessarily complex language.

Structure of Critique Paper

The structure of a typical critique essay example includes an introduction, a summary, an analysis, and a conclusion. The paper format is a crucial element. Just like when you write your research papers , a critique benefits from a clear one to guide the reader. Therefore, work on defining the critique essay outline before starting the writing process. One of the most common formatting styles to adopt is the APA format (APA: American Psychological Association), which has specific rules and guidelines. And keep in mind that some specific elements should be included in each section:

Introduction: The introduction’s function is to provide background relevant information. It should also include the thesis statement, which is the writer’s main argument or position on the topic. The thesis statement should be clear and specific and presented in a way that engages the reader.

Summary: The summary provides an overview of the text. It must be objective, unbiased, and accurately summarize the piece’s main points. The summary has to be brief and to the point and should only include the most important details of the work.

Analysis: The analysis is where the writer provides their evaluation of the text being critiqued. This section is the most detailed and extensive part of the paper, containing the facts that prove your main argument and support your thesis. The analysis should focus on the thesis statement and provide a clear and logical argument.

Conclusion: In the conclusion, the paper’s main points are summarized, and the thesis statement is restated to emphasize the writer’s main position. It should provide a final evaluation of the work and include recommendations for improvement.

Essential Steps to Write a Critique Essay

Critique writing requires a thoughtful and detailed approach. You can find below the essential steps to follow:

Read and observe the work:

Before beginning the essay, you should read and observe the work, taking notes on its relevant elements. It is crucial to pay attention to details and to identify both strengths and weaknesses.

Conduct research:

In addition to analyzing the work, you need to research the author, director, or artist and the work’s historical and cultural context. This step can be time and effort-consuming. That’s why as a student who’s probably stuck with many assignments, you can consider to pay for research paper , which will solve the problem most efficiently. The research can provide valuable insights into the work and help you develop a more informed critique.

Develop a thesis statement:

Based on the analysis of the work and any research conducted, you should develop a clear and specific thesis statement that accurately presents your main argument or evaluation of the piece.

Write your critique:

Once you have your thesis statement, you can begin writing your critique essay. Begin by providing some background information on the work in an introduction. In the body of your essay, provide evidence and analysis to support your evaluation. Use specific examples and quotes from the text to support your arguments. Consider including external sources to provide additional context or compare the work to similar works. Finally, end your essay with a conclusion summarizing your main points and restating your thesis statement.

Revise and edit:

After completing the first draft of your essay, you should revise and edit it carefully. Pay attention to your argument’s structure, clarity, and coherence. Also, ensure that your essay logically progresses from one concept to the next. It’s important to note that when you format an essay , considerations may vary depending on the assignment’s specific requirements. Some may require additional sections, such as a discussion of the author’s background or a comparison to other works.

How to start a critique paper?

Starting a critique paper requires careful consideration and preparation. It is important to read and understand the subject thoroughly, including its purpose, structure, and context. Once you have a clear understanding of the subject, you should identify specific criteria to use in your evaluation, such as style, structure, effectiveness, relevance, and accuracy. Taking notes on the subject’s strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement will help you organize your thoughts, and creating an outline that includes the introduction, analysis, and conclusion will ensure a well-structured paper. Finally, a strong thesis statement that clearly states your evaluation of the subject and the criteria you will use to evaluate it is crucial to the success of your critique paper.

How can I write a critique paper on a research article?

To write a critique paper on a research article, it is essential to consider key areas such as the research question and hypothesis, methodology, results, and overall evaluation. Firstly, determine whether the research question is clear, relevant, and testable. Secondly, evaluate the methodology used in the study to determine whether it’s appropriate for the research question. Thirdly, analyze the results presented in the research article to determine whether they are consistent with the research question and hypothesis. Lastly, evaluate the overall quality and contribution of the research article to the field. By considering these areas, you can provide a comprehensive critique of the research article.

What is the difference between summarizing and critiquing an article?

Many students struggle to distinguish between the two. They often summarize the work, neglecting to adopt a personal approach and use analytical skills. In such cases, custom essay writing service Edusson is the best option to handle the job for you. It also helps you improve your critical thinking and practical skills.

Related posts:

• 6 Step Process for Essay Writing
• How to Write a Diagnostic Essay (Without Fail)
• The Full Guide to Writing Comparison Essays with Point-by-Point Method
• Footnotes 101: A Guide to Proper Formatting

Improve your writing with our guides

How to Write a Scholarship Essay

Definition Essay: The Complete Guide with Essay Topics and Examples

Critical Essay: The Complete Guide. Essay Topics, Examples and Outlines

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

• 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

• Spartanburg Community College Library
• SCC Research Guides
• Writing a Critique

When you are writing a critique, you are really evaluating and analyzing  a source. In a critique, you are highlighting the strengths and the weaknesses of a work and discussing how effectively a source made their point.

In your critique, while you should give some of your own opinions about the source, you want to back up your opinion with valid reasons. Try to be objective, fair, and sincere any time you are writing a critique.

Difference between Critiquing and Criticizing

There is a difference between writing a critique of a source and criticizing a source.

A critique is an analysis of a work. Critiques are based on knowledge of a topic and are not based solely of your opinion about a work. Critiques are focused on the effectiveness of a work. 

Criticizing a work has you focused on your personal opinion of if you liked or disliked a source and does not consider any objective knowledge about a source.

Things to Consider when Writing a Critique

You can write a critique on various types of sources (events, books, presentations, films, etc.). Depending on what you are critiquing, you may want to focus on different elements. Below is a list of possible elements you might include in your critique:

• Author's writing style
• Speaker's presentation style
• Speaker's stage presence
• Speaker's responses to a Question and Answer portion
• Design of event or event space
• Information or facts given in a source
• Quality of content in the source
• How did the source maintain your interest
• Visual aids
• Bias of source
• Social or cultural implications of a source
• Film techniques
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Parts of a Critique >>
• Parts of a Critique
• Recommended Videos
• Recommended Websites

Questions? Ask a Librarian

• 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

Copyright © 2024 Spartanburg Community College. All rights reserved.

Info for Library Staff | Guide Search

Return to SCC Website

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.

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

• 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.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

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.

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

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. ↩

You Might Also Like

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

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

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

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

Public Picks 2023

Skip to Content

Other ways to search:

• Events Calendar

Want to write a college essay that sets you apart? Three tips to give you a head start

1. Keep it real. It’s normal to want to make a good impression on the school of your choice, but it’s also important to show who you really are. So just be yourself! Compelling stories might not be perfectly linear or have a happy ending, and that’s OK. It’s best to be authentic instead of telling schools what you think they want to hear.

2. Be reflective . Think about how you’ve changed during high school. How have you grown and improved? What makes you feel ready for college, and how do you hope to contribute to the campus community and society at large?

3. Look to the future. Consider your reasons for attending college. What do you hope to gain from your education? What about college excites you the most, and what would you like to do after you graduate? Answering these questions will not only give colleges insight into the kind of student you’ll be, but it will also give you the personal insight you’ll need to choose the school that’s right for you.

Have questions about college prep? We're here to help.

Written by CU Boulder Office of Admissions

• College-Prep

The University of Colorado does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, pregnancy, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, political affiliation, or political philosophy. All qualified individuals are encouraged to apply. You may  view the list of ADA and Title IX coordinators  and  review the Regent policy .

As a student or prospective student at CU Boulder, you have a right to certain information pertaining to financial aid programs, the Clery Act, crime and safety, graduation rates, athletics and other general information such as the costs associated with attending CU Boulder. To view this information visit  colorado.edu/your-right-know .

Apply for Admission

Visit Campus

Support CU Boulder

• Safety & Health Services
• COVID-19 Information
• Campus Communications
• Emergency Alert System
• New Student & Family Programs

Getting Around

• Campus Events
• Parking & Transportation
• Visit Information

Information for

• Faculty & Staff
• Journalists

Initiatives

• Business & Industry Collaborations
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Free Speech
• Innovation & Entrepreneurship
• Public & Outreach Programs
• Sustainability
• Understanding Your Cost of Attendance

• Share full article

The All-Male Christian Group Seeking a Resurrection in the Trump Era

At a gathering this weekend, the evangelical organization Promise Keepers leaned into partisan politics it once eschewed.

Promise Keepers hosted the Daring Faith conference in Tulsa, Okla., this weekend. Credit... David Robert Elliott for The New York Times

Supported by

By Ruth Graham

Reporting from Tulsa, Okla.

• Aug. 11, 2024

With his back to the U.S. Capitol, Randy Phillips faced a sea of evangelical men who had traveled from all over the country to pray, sing and recommit themselves to their families.

It was an autumn Saturday in 1997, and Promise Keepers, a fast-growing conservative Christian men’s ministry that some warned was a covert political project, had gathered at its biggest event ever. “Why are we here?” Mr. Phillips, then the organization’s president, asked the hundreds of thousands of men in attendance. “Is it to demonstrate political might? No. Is it to demonstrate masculine strength? No. Is it to take back the nation by imposing our religious values on others? No.” The crowd roared with approval.

This weekend, a much smaller group of Promise Keepers gathered in Tulsa, Okla., at a very different moment for evangelicals — with less decisive answers to those questions. Headed by a new young chief executive, the group is leaning into partisan politics where it once eschewed them, and equipping men to do battle not only with their own spiritual weaknesses but also with a secular culture that speakers portrayed as uniquely hostile.

“They want American men to be weak, put into corners, afraid of your own shadow,” the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk said at the two-day conference, which drew about 2,000 men. “If men, and Christian men, start to recommit to the truths of the promises of the Bible, this country can and will be saved.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

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

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

Try AI-powered search

What next after Ukraine’s shock invasion of Russia?

It could dig in, pull back or grab more as a bargaining chip.

U KRAINE’S LIGHTNING incursion into the Russian province of Kursk has exceeded the expectations of even those who planned it. On August 12th General Oleksandr Syrsky, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, claimed that his forces controlled roughly 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory. “Control” may be an overstatement. But in seven days the Ukrainians have seized almost as much territory as Russia has managed, at huge cost, to take from them since the start of the year (1,175 square kilometres). In the next few days the incursion will probably culminate, as troops tire and supply lines become stretched. The question is whether Ukraine can translate short-term gains into lasting strategic advantage.

The short-term gains are straightforward. Vladimir Putin has been palpably embarrassed: on August 12th he was shown on Russian state television castigating military, security and local government officials. Ukrainian forces have taken control of the story after many months of being on the back foot, notes Konrad Muzyka, a military analyst with Rochan Consulting, a firm that tracks the war. Ukraine has maintained tight security and has been able to surprise the enemy, much as General Syrsky’s offensive did against Russian forces in Kharkiv nearly two years ago. Ukraine believes it has shown that far from being frozen the conflict’s frontline is fluid, potentially changing the calculus of Russia and the West in any future negotiations.

Mr Muzyka cautions that Ukraine could suffer huge losses when Russia counter-attacks. So far it has not yet mustered forces to do so. There is still little sign of Russian resistance on the ground. Ukraine has taken a large number of prisoners, mostly callow conscripts or men from the National Guard, an internal military force. They have been quick to surrender. The Ukrainians have faced little opposition from the pockets of civilians who have stayed behind. Tens of thousands have been evacuated, according to the governor of Kursk. Many have left of their own accord, angry at the chaotic response.

Russia’s failure to mount a rapid counter-attack puzzles some Ukrainian officers. Rather than redeploying troops from the Donbas to Kursk, the Kremlin may be planning an asymmetrical response, such as a rocket barrage against the government quarter in Kyiv. So far Mr Putin faces no great pressure from public opinion at home: Russians are aware of the incursion, but the state-controlled media have reported on Russian forces’ supposedly successful resistance, and on the humanitarian situation. Apart from a few articles in relatively independent news sources, news of the chaos has not reached most citizens.

Even military bloggers, who sometimes critique the army’s failures, saw the invasion of the homeland mainly as an outrage that could unite Russians in demanding vengeance. (One hoped it would wake up spoiled Muscovites “sipping [their] raspberry frappés”.) Among Russians in the opposition or in exile, it has provoked mixed responses. Ilya Yashin, an opposition politician freed to the West in a prisoner exchange on August 2nd, blamed the “deaths and destruction” in Kursk on Mr Putin. Another opposition figure, Lev Shlosberg, who is still in Russia, said anyone welcoming Ukrainian military successes should no longer consider themselves a Russian politician.

What does Ukraine do next? The advance has moved so fast, and the Russians have been so slow to respond, that Ukraine may be rethinking objectives. The initial goals were to boost its own people’s morale, and give renewed confidence to Ukraine’s Western supporters that it deserves more military backing. Ukraine also wanted the Kremlin to divert troops from the front line, especially in the Donetsk region, where Russia is making advances along an axis between the towns of Toretsk, Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar. Since the incursion began, Ukraine has lost control of part of the town of Hrodivka, 15km from Pokrovsk.

Assuming the Russians start deploying more capable forces to the area, the Ukrainians will have three options, says Mick Ryan, a retired Australian general and strategist. The maximalist approach would be to try to hold the territory it has seized—or even push further—in order to draw more Russian troops from Ukraine and provide a bargaining chip in any future negotiations. But this is risky, Mr Ryan points out. It would be hard for Ukraine to maintain electronic-warfare and air-defence coverage for even well dug-in troops across such a wide salient. The Ukrainians know how lethal Russian glide bombs are against fixed positions. Ukraine would have to divert resources from the front line inside its own territory, and its forces’ losses in Kursk would undermine its positive story.

A second option would be to pull back to the border in good order, preserving troops and equipment for attempts to reclaim Ukrainian territory next year. Ukraine would have shown that it can take the war to Russia and undermined the narrative of a grinding, inevitable Russian victory, which has developed traction among Ukraine’s less resolute allies.

A third option would be to withdraw partially to a more defensible position nearer the Ukrainian border which would require fewer troops and be better supported by artillery and logistics. It would also form a base for further attacks when opportunities arise. A source in Ukraine’s general staff suggests this is the most likely option: some logistics—engineering forces, fuel, field hospitals, food and repair bases—have already been moved several kilometres inside the Russian border.

Despite initial reports that Ukraine might seek to seize the Kursk nuclear power plant or other sensitive sites, the response from its allies has been surprisingly positive. The Biden administration, which has opposed Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian oil refineries and restricted the use of American missiles on Russian soil, said that the operation was an acceptable use of American weaponry, including Stryker armoured vehicles. Germany, which usually worries about anything that might prompt Russian escalation, has pointed to Ukraine’s right of self-defence. There has been little sign of allies offering private or public rebuke of Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president. His challenge is now to translate the success of the past week into something enduring. ■

To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up to  Café Europa , our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.

Explore more

More from europe.

Ukraine’s shock raid deep inside Russia rages on

The surprise attack comes as Ukraine is under pressure in the Donbas

Paris’s stunning vision for the Olympics wins a gold medal

It marks a shift away from sporting gigantism

Ukraine surprises with a high-stakes raid into Russia

The second battle of Kursk is raging

The siesta is still a serious business in Europe’s south

It should be copied more widely

Can anything rouse Germany from its economic slumber?

Politicians are more interested in trivial budget rows than finding sources of growth

Turkey’s president refuses to let sleeping dogs lie

Stray dogs are being rounded up