Critique

Critique

What is a critique?

A critique is an analysis and an evaluation of a text. To “critique” a text does not mean to analyze in a negative way. A critique of a text can evaluate both the negative and the positive aspects of the text. A critique is not merely a summary. While a short summary is important, most of a critique should be analyzing and evaluating.

 

How do you analyze and evaluate a text?

Your analysis will help you and your readers gain an understanding of the text. To analyze the text, you should ask yourself several questions:

· What is the main point the author is making?

· Why is he/she making this point?

· What audience is the author writing for?

· How does the author argue his/her point?

· How does the author support his/her argument?

· Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

 

To evaluate a text, judge how well the author makes his/her argument. This is the part that comments on the strengths and usefulness of the text, as well as its weaknesses or omissions. As you evaluate, you might ask yourself the following questions:

 

· Does the author’s argument make sense?

· Is the text easy to understand or is it confusing?

· Does the author back up his/her point with evidence?

· Does the author take opposing viewpoints into account?

· Is the author reliable? Does he/she use reliable sources?

 

Tips for analysis and evaluation

 

· Take notes as you read the text.

· Highlight or underline the most important points.

· Highlight the points that you feel are not strongly presented

 

How do you write the critique?

Introduction

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

· Name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator.

· Describe the main argument or purpose of the work.

· Explain the context in which the work was created.  This could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience.

· Have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be. For instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Summary

Briefly summarize 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, characterization and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, color and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

This is where you can show how well you have analyzed and evaluated the text. The answers to the questions you asked yourself during your analysis and evaluation of the text could be good points to guide your discussion.

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.

When you make your main points of criticism (positive or negative) you have the opportunity to discuss your own opinions and reaction to the text. However, you must remember to support your points with evidence from the text. When critiquing the text, avoid using the first and second person (I, we, you).

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 favor a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?

· Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

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

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

Conclusion

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

· A statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work

· A summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed.

· In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

· Do not bring up any new points or information in your conclusion.

 

 

 

Critique Checklist

· Introduces article by FULL title, author’s name, and complete main idea

· Provides relevant background information on the author’s qualifications and credentials

· Draws conclusion about author’s credibility based on above

· Summarizes article focusing on main idea and sub ideas ONLY. No examples or quotes

· Raises objection (or agreement) about support strategies

· Supplies evidence for objection (or agreement), focusing, for example, on lack of varied support strategies, overuse of particular support strategies, weak support (for example, out of date studies and surveys, unqualified experts), heavily weighted on anecdotal evidence, use of informal fallacies, author bias, etc.

· Focuses conclusion on recommendations to improve argument; closes with opinion on argument/topic being critiqued

· Proofread for grammar and spelling mistakes