A critique is not (only) a criticism.

A critique is a specific
style of essay in which you identify, evaluate, and
respond to an author's ideas, both positively and
negatively. It is usually applied to academic sources.
 You are expected to engage with the article rather than just
summarize it, by considering its content carefully, and from
different angles. Your critique must be objective, so support it
with evidence rather than instinct or emotion.
 When you engage in a critique you are demonstrating to your
marker that:
o You have read extensively
o You can identify the particular strengths and weaknesses of those
readings
o You can identify different positions and perspectives in the
readings
o You are developing the skills and knowledge to engage with the
experts
o You are joining in a broader academic debate about an article's
merits
 Critiquing means that you are developing an
understanding of more than a single article: it means that
you are developing an understanding of the 'big picture',
of the discipline as a whole. Later in your study you may
be expected to contribute new understandings to the
discipline, so it is important to understand the current
state of knowledge
 Identify:
o What is the article's background and purpose?
o What is the main idea (the main argument) that the article is
communicating?
 Evaluate:
o How convincing is the argument?
o What does the argument assume?
o How useful or applicable is the article?
o How does the article compare with other current theory and
research?
 Respond:
o What is your assessment of the article?
o What issues does it raise?
o What issues does it avoid?
 Read through the article once to get the main idea. The first time
you read through an article, you should simply try to understand the
overall argument that the author is making. Note the author's
thesis.
 Mark up the text as you read through it again. It is
sometimes helpful to use a red pen to make your markings
stand out. Ask yourself questions like these as you read
through a second time:
o What is the author's thesis/argument?
o What is the author's purpose in arguing said thesis?
o Who is the intended audience? Does the article effectively reach this
audience?
o Does the author have ample and valid evidence?
o Are there any holes in the author's argument?
o Did the author misrepresent evidence or add bias to evidence?
o Does the author reach a conclusive point?
 Create a legend for your markings. Create a unique
symbol to differentiate between parts of the text that
might be confusing, important, or inconsistent.
o For example, you could underline important passages,
circle confusing ones, and star inconsistencies.
o Creating a legend with assigned symbols allows you to quickly
mark up an article. Though it may take a little bit of time to
recognize your own symbols, they will quickly become
ingrained in your mind and allow you to breeze through an
article much quicker than without a symbol legend.
 Take some longer notes during subsequent
readings. In addition to a legend, it is helpful to take
notes when expanded thoughts come to you as you
read. For instance, if you realize that an author's claim
can be refuted by noting a scientific study that you
previously read, make a note of it in the margins, on a
separate piece of paper, or on a computer so that you
can come back to your idea.
o Don't be foolish enough to think that you will remember your
idea when it comes time to write your critique.
o Spend the necessary time writing down your observations as
you read. You will be glad you did when it comes time to put your
observations into a complete analytical paper.
 Develop a preliminary concept for your
critique. Form a vague opinion of the piece in question.
Evaluate the author's overall argument after you have
read the article through two or three times. Record your
initial reactions to the text.
o Make a list of possible sources of evidence for your critique.
Jog your memory for any literature you've read or
documentaries you've seen that might be useful for evaluating
the article.
 Question whether the writer's overall message is logical.
Test
the hypothesis
o Even if an and compare
author has doneitresearch
to otherand
similar examples.
quoted respected experts, analyze
the message for its practicality and real world application.
o Examine the author's introduction and conclusion to make sure they match
up as convincing and complementary elements.
 Search the article for any biases, whether intentional or
unintentional. If the author has anything to gain from the
conclusions demonstrated in the article, it's possible that some
bias has been demonstrated.
o Bias includes ignoring contrary evidence, misappropriating evidence to
make conclusions appear different than they are, and imparting one's own,
unfounded opinions on a text. Well-sourced opinions are perfectly OK, but
those without academic support deserve to be met with a skeptical eye.
o Bias can also come from a place of prejudice. Note any biases related to
race, ethnicity, gender, class, or politics.
 Consider the author's interpretations of other
texts. If the author makes a claim about another's work,
read the original work and see if you agree with the
analysis provided in the article. Complete agreement is
obviously not necessary or even likely; but consider
whether the author’s interpretation is defensible.
o Note any inconsistencies between your interpretation of a text
and the author's interpretation of a text. Such conflict may
bear fruit when it comes time to write your review.
o See what other scholars have to say. If several scholars from
diverse backgrounds have the same opinion about a text, that
opinion should be given more weight than an argument with
little support.
 Notice if the author cites untrustworthy evidence. Does the
author cite an irrelevant text from fifty years ago that no longer
holds weight in the discipline at hand? If the author cites unreliable
sources, it greatly diminishes the credibility of the article.
 Don’t completely ignore stylistic elements. The content of
the article is likely the most important aspect for your literary
critique, but don't overlook the formal and/or literary techniques that
the author might use. Pay attention to obscure word choices and
the author's tone throughout the article. This is particularly helpful
for non- scientific articles dealing with aspects of literature, for
example.
o These aspects of an article can reveal deeper issues in the larger argument.
For example, an article written in a heated, overzealous tone might be
ignoring or refusing to engage with contradictory evidence in its analysis.
o Always look up the definitions of unfamiliar words. A word's definition can
completely change the meaning of a sentence, especially if a particular
word has several definitions. Question why an author chose one particular
word instead of another, and it might reveal something about their
argument.
 Question research methods in scientific articles. If
critiquing an article containing a scientific theory, be sure
to evaluate the research methods behind the
experiment. Ask yourself questions such as these:
o Does the author detail the methods thoroughly?
o Is the study designed without major flaws?
o Is there a problem with the sample size?
o Was a control group created for comparison?
o Are all of the statistical calculations correct?
o Would another party be able to duplicate the experiment in
question?
o Is the experiment significant for that particular field of
study?
 Dig deep. Use your existing knowledge, educated
opinions, and any research you can gather to either
support or disagree with the author's article. Provide
empirical arguments to support your stance.
o While there is no such thing as too much good evidence, over-
sourcing can also be a problem if your arguments become
repetitive. Make sure each source provides something unique
to your critique.
o Additionally, don't allow your use of sources to crowd out your
own opinions and arguments.
 Remember that a critique doesn't have to be entirely
positive or negative. In fact, the most interesting literary
critiques often don’t vehemently disagree with the author;
rather, they build upon or complicate the author's idea with
additional evidence.
o If you do agree entirely with the author, therefore, make sure to
build upon the argument either by providing additional evidence or
complicating the author's idea.
o You can provide contradictory evidence to an argument while still
maintaining that a particular point of view is the correct one.
o Don’t “take it easy” on the author due to misguided empathy; but
neither should you be excessively negative in an attempt to prove
your critical bona fides. Forcefully express your defensible points of
agreement and disagreement.
 Begin with an introduction that outlines your
argument. The introduction should be no more than two
paragraphs long and should lay out the basic framework for
your critique. Start off by noting where the article in
question fails or succeeds most dramatically and why.
o Be sure to include the name of the author, article title, the journal or
publication the article appeared in, the publication date, and a
statement about the focus and/or thesis of the article in your
introductory paragraph(s).
o The introduction is not the place to provide evidence for your
opinions. Your evidence will go in the body paragraphs of your
critique.
o Be bold in your introductory assertions and make your purpose
clear right off the bat. Skirting around or not fully committing to an
argument lessens your credibility.
 Provide evidence for your argument in the body
paragraphs of your critique.Each body paragraph should
detail a new idea or further expand your argument in a
new direction.
o Begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence that summarizes
the content of the paragraph to come. Don't feel like you have to
condense the entire paragraph into the topic sentence, however.
This is purely a place to transition into a new or somehow different
idea.
o End each body paragraph with a transitional sentence that hints at,
though does not explicitly state, the content of the paragraph
coming next. For example, you might write, "While John Doe shows
that the number of cases of childhood obesity is rising at a
remarkable rate in the U.S., there are instances of dropping obesity
rates in some American cities." Your next paragraph would then
provide specific examples of these anomalous cities that you just
claimed exist.
 Complicate your argument near the end of the
critique. No matter how solid your argument is, there is
always at least one dramatic way in which you can
provide a final twist or take your argument one step
further and suggest possible implications. Do this in the
final body paragraph before your conclusion to leave the
reader with a final, memorable argument.
o You might, for instance, utilize a counterargument, in which you
anticipate a critique of your critique and reaffirm your position.
Use phrases like “Admittedly,” “It is true that,” or “One might
object here” to identify the counterargument. Then, answer
these possible counters and turn back to your strengthened
argument with “but,” “yet,” or “nevertheless.”
 Present your arguments in a well-reasoned,
objective tone. Avoid writing in an overzealous or
obnoxiously passionate tone, as doing so can be a turn-
off to many readers. Let your passion shine through in
your ability to do thorough research and articulate
yourself effectively.
o While writing “This piece of garbage is an insult to historians
everywhere” might garner attention, “This article falls short of
the standards for scholarship in this area of historical study” is
more likely to be taken seriously by readers.
 Conclude your critique by summarizing your
argument and suggesting potential implications. It
is important to provide a recap of your main points
throughout the article, but you also need to tell the
reader what your critique means for the discipline at
large.
o Are there broad implications for the field of study being
assessed, or does your critique simply attempt to debunk
the messy work of another scholar?
o Do your best to make a lasting mark on the reader in the
conclusion by using assertive language to demonstrate the
importance of your work: “Challenging the claims of such a
distinguished scholar is no easy or enjoyable task, but it is a
task we all must agree to do for our generation and those to
follow.”
 http://www.wikihow.com/Critique-an-Article


http://owll.massey.ac.nz/assignment-types/article-

critique.php