How to Write a Critique

The critique is a rigorous critical reading of a passage. As such, it picks up where the
objective summary leaves off. In fact, a critique often includes a brief summary so that
its readers will be able to quickly grasp the main ideas and proofs of the passage under
examination. Critiques come in all shapes and sizes, but a good way to get used to
writing critically is to plan your earliest critiques along the following lines.

First, read the passage thoroughly. Make plenty of notes, ask lots of questions, and
highlight or underline anything you may wish to quote in your paper. Spend some time
on this step. It is impossibly to adequately critique something if you don't fully
understand it.

Next, write a summary. Identify the author's main point (thesis) and list the types of
proofs he or she employs to persuade the reader to believe or accept the thesis. For
example, does the author use historical anecdotes, quote noted authorities, provide
statistical evidence, or appeal to a reader's sense of patriotism or generosity? These are
all common types of proofs used in persuasive writing. You should also try to figure out
why the author is writing, and to whom. Remember that the purpose of a paper and its
intended audience can affect the way the paper is written.

Now, set your own agreement or disagreement with the author aside for a moment and
investigate the validity of his or her argument.

 Does the author provide complete and accurate information? Some authors may
leave important facts out of their presentations in order to avoid dealing with
them, or they may give inaccurate data either through ignorance or in a deliberate
attempt to mislead readers.
 Does the author provide information that is relevant to the issue?

 Does the author define key terms adequately and clearly? Just because someone
uses the words "freedom," "rights," or "harm" in an essay, does not necessarily
make those terms universal. Some people might interpret "harm," for example, as
"injury," while others might interpret it as "offense."

 Finally, is the author's argument logically consistent, or is it supported on fallacious

logic such as the "straw man," the "slippery slope," or the "false dilemma"?

Once you have examined carefully the passage you intend to critique, use the
information you have collected to draft a response to the passage. Do you agree or
disagree with the author's views and proofs? Be sure to discuss specific reasons why you
agree or disagree with something. The critique's value as an academic document rests
on your ability to say precisely why you agree or disagree.

Finally, draft the critique. You should include:

 An introduction which introduces the passage and its author. This introduction
should clearly state the author's thesis and the arguments you intend to make
about it. The introduction should also provide your reader with a little background
so that he or she will understand why this critique is worth reading. What do you
know about the author? About the issue under discussion? Is it of current or
 historical interest? Is it at the heart of a controversy? What is the author's intended
audience? These details can strengthen your introduction.
 A brief summary. You should already have drafted a summary. Now you can include
it in your draft of your critique, making sure to use adequate transitions so that the
writing flows smoothly.

 Your analysis of the author's presentation. Present your reader with an in-depth
analysis of the validity of the author's logic and use of evidence, as discussed
above. Be sure to present your information in a form which is easy to follow, using
transitional elements whenever necessary to preserve the smooth flow of your
writing.

 Your own response to the argument. As discussed above, you may agree or
disagree with the author's views, and this is the part of the critique where you
make your own views on the issue clear. Remember that your own arguments must
be well-supported. You must give compelling reasons for your agreement or
disagreement with the author.

 A conclusion. Evaluate the author's overall success or failure in achieving his or her
purpose. Also, remind your reader of the strengths and weaknesses of the
passage.

Once the critique is drafted, revise it, making sure you have emphasized the most salient
points in your discussion. Check your sentence variety, your organization, and your word
choice. Is the critique all it can be? Have you edited the critique to eliminate errors in
spelling, sentence structure, and agreement?

If you follow these simple steps, your critique should be concise, correct, and effective.
Writing a critique
What is a critique?
A critique is a genre of academic writing that briefly summarises and critically evaluates a work or concept. Critiques can be
used to carefully analyse a variety of works such as:
 Creative works – novels, exhibits, film, images, poetry
 Research – monographs, journal articles, systematic reviews, theories
 Media – news reports, feature articles
Like an essay, a critique uses a formal, academic writing style and has a clear structure, that is, an introduction, body and
conclusion. However, the body of a critique includes a summary of the work and a detailed evaluation. The purpose of an
evaluation is to gauge the usefulness or impact of a work in a particular field.
Why do we write critiques?
Writing a critique on a work helps us to develop:
 A knowledge of the work’s subject area or related works.
 An understanding of the work’s purpose, intended audience, development of argument, structure of evidence or creative
style.
 A recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of the work.
How to write a critique
Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.
 Study the work under discussion.
 Make notes on key parts of the work.
 Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
 Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.
There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or blackboard site for guidance
from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.
Introduction
Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:
 Name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator.
 Describe the main argument or purpose of the work.
 Explain the context in which the work was created. This could include the social or political context, the place of the
work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience.
 Have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be. For instance, it may indicate
whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.
Summary
Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media,
characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.
Critical evaluation
This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the
creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and
setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a
research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.
A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths
and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.
Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:
 Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
 What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
 What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
 What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
 What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
 How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
 Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key
concepts or other works in its discipline?
This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start
with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss
the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of
each key critical question in individual paragraphs.
To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence
from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.
Conclusion
This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:
 A statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
 A summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed.
 In some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.
Reference list
Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

Checklist for a critique

Have I:
 Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
 Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
 Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
 Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
 used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of of the
work?
 formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
 used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
 used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?
Further information
University of New South Wales - some general criteria for evaluating works
University of Toronto - The book review or article critique