Akaidalia Critique Essay

Whenever you read an essay, use the following questions to guide your response.

First, keep in mind that, although you may not be a writing expert, you are THE reader of this essay and your response is a valid one. I have found that almost every reader, regardless of experience, can identify the primary strength and weakness in an essay, although their method of describing those issues may be different. The author will welcome your response and your ability to explain your reaction in a new way. Although the author is not required to, and really shouldn’t, respond to everything you say, he or she will take your comments seriously and consider how the essays has enlightened or confused you. Therefore, comment freely, although respectfully. Keep in mind that it is better to begin by noting the strengths of the essay before pointing out the areas that need improvement. I would always include a personal response to questions like the following: What about the essay most connects with your experience? Moves you? Provokes you? Entertains you?

So that is how to respond. So how do you critique? For every essay, regardless of the mode, consider the broad categories of content, organization, style, and correctness.

  1. Content: Consider the topic (its appropriateness and interest for the assignment as well as a clear focus suitable to essay length) and the way the topic is developed (clarity sufficiency of its argument, its scope, subcategories, amount and type of examples, anecdotes, evidence, etc.).
  2. Organization: Consider how the essay is introduced and concluded (especially looking for a “frame” to the essay, where the intro and conclusion refer to the same idea), whether the thesis is located in the most helpful place (direct or implied), how the essay is structured, whether the order or extent of development is successful, as well as how individual paragraphs are organized (clear topic sentences, appropriate and concrete evidence, logical organization of evidence).
  3. Style: Style can refer to the overall style of an essay: whether the tone is appropriate (humorous, serious, reflective, satirical, etc.), whether you use sufficient and appropriate variety (factual, analytical, evaluative, reflective), whether you use sufficient creativity. Style can also refer to the style of individual sentences: whether you use a variety of sentences styles and lengths, whether sentences are worded clearly, and whether word choice is interesting and appropriate.
  4. Correctness: Correctness refers to grammar, punctuation, and form of the essay. You do not need to know the exact grammatical term or rule to know when a sentence is not correct. Even though you may not know the term dangling modifier, you could identify that the following sentence is not correct:

    Rolling around in the bottom of the drawer, Tim found the missing earring. [certainly the earring was rolling, not Tim!]

    You could also easily tell that the following sentence actually contains two sentences that need punctuation between them:

    The new manager instituted several new procedures some were impractical. [You need to add punctuation (period) after “procedures” and capitalize “some.”]

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

Further Directions for Specific Assignments

Below are more detailed questions to consider when responding to individual types of essays. First, make sure that you have reviewed the description of the essay mode in the Essay Assignment Guidelines. Use at least one or two of these when responding to an essay. Do not simply answer yes or no; offer specific evidence from the text and elaborate on the reasons behind your answer.

Personal Essay Critique:

  1. Does the writer have a clear but understated purpose to the essay?
  2. Does it avoid being overly moralistic or heavy-handed?
  3. Does the essay contain suspense or tension that is resolved in some way?
  4. Do you have any suggestions for organizing the essay, such as focusing in on one event rather than many, providing more background, turning explanation into action, etc.?
  5. Does the essay make good use of concrete description, anecdote, and dialogue?
  6. Does the essay help you to feel the emotions rather than just describe the emotions of the author?
  7. Does the essay reveal a significant aspect of the writer’s personality?
  8. Does the writer seem authentic?
  9. Is this a passionate piece? Is it creative?

Critical Review Critique

  1. Does a direct thesis convey both the subject and the reviewer’s value judgment?
  2. Does the review provide a summary or description to help you experience the film, music, event, etc.? Note places where the author provides too much or too little detail.
  3. Does the essay clearly identify relevant criteria for evaluation? Are they appropriate, believable, and consistent?
  4. Are any important features of the reviewed subject omitted?
  5. Logos (logic, content): Does the essay provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details and examples to adequately inform and entertain?
  6. Ethos (author): Does the author’s judgment seem sound and convincing?
  7. Pathos (emotional appeals): Does the author responsibly and effectively utilize emotional appeals to the audience?
  8. Does the author include adequate reference to the opposition and respond to that opposition appropriately?

Information Essay Critique: The questions posed about an informative essay will vary, depending on the purpose and strategy of the essay. The SMGW suggests evaluating for the following issues:

  1. Is topic clearly explained and sufficiently focused?
  2. Does the content fit the audience?
  3. Is it organized effectively?
  4. Are definitions clear?
  5. Are other strategies (classification, comparison/contrast, analysis) used effectively?
  6. Are sources used sufficiently, effectively, and appropriately?

You might also assess the following criteria:

  1. Does the author utilize vivid detail, interesting examples, and lively language?
  2. Does the essay avoid emphasizing judgment over explanation?
  3. Does the essay have a clear focus or implied thesis?

Comparison/Contrast Essay Critique

  1. Is the purpose for a comparison or contrast evident and convincing?
  2. Does the essay identify significant and parallel characteristics for comparison?
  3. Does the author adequately explain, analyze, or reflect on the comparison or contrast?
  4. Does the author provide appropriate transitions words to indicate comparison and contrast?
  5. Is the treatment of each side of the comparison or contrast in balance?
  6. Does the essay provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details?

Feature Article Critique

  1. Does this article interest you? Do you think it will interest the intended audience? Can you suggest ways to increase interest?
  2. Can you tell what the “angle” or implied thesis is? Does the author avoid editorial judgment on the subject while still keeping the purpose clear?
  3. Has the writer done sufficient research? What questions have gone unasked or unanswered? Whose point of view or what information would add further to the completeness of the feature?
  4. Is the subject presented vividly with sensory images, graphic detail, and figurative language? Do you have suggestions of details or images to include?
  5. Does the writer use an appropriate mixture of anecdote, quotation, description, and explanation? Would more or less of one of these improve the essay?
  6. Are the beginning and ending paragraphs interesting and appropriate for the specific audience? Consider the need for a “lead sentence” if intended for a newspaper.

Documented Argument Critique

  1. Is the thesis clear, argumentative, and effective? Why or why not?
  2. Are the topic and thesis are reasonable for the assignment, audience, and context of the essay?
  3. Does the author define his or her terms and provide sufficient background information? What ideas or terms are undefined or inadequately explained?
  4. Is the thesis supported by clear reasons? Are the reasons clearly worded and supported sufficiently?
  5. Do the reasons fit logically together and are they placed in the right order?
  6. Does the author adequately address the opposition? What is another opposing argument he/she should or could have addressed?
  7. Has the author done adequate research?
  8. Are the works cited adequately introduced and explained before citing from them?
  9. Does the paper contain an appropriate blend of well-placed quotations within a context of the author’s own words and paraphrases from other sources?
  10. Is the writer clearly in charge, naturally introducing and interacting with sources rather than merely reporting on them?
  11. Do you find the argument convincing? What might you add or omit?

Business Writing Critique

Memo

  1. Does the memo begin with the most important information?
  2. Does the memo build rapport by involving the reader in opening paragraph?
  3. Does the memo provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details? Is it focused and brief?
  4. Does the memo focus each paragraph on one idea?
  5. Is the memo informed, accurate, demonstrating the author’s grasp of the situation?
  6. Is the final paragraph calling for a specific action? Is it brief? Does it build good will?
  7. Is the memo form correct, with concise subject line, initialed name, correct spacing?
  8. Is the information arranged (indentations and numbering) in a way that makes it easy to skim and still get central information?

Cover letter

  1. Does the first paragraph identify who the author is, briefly state why he/she is writing, and refer to how he/she found out about the job?
  2. Does the second paragraph highlight specific strengths, special abilities, or features of the résumé to be noted?
  3. Does the third paragraph make a specific request of the reader or address what action is to be taken?
  4. Does the letter provide sufficient, relevant, and interesting details to make the request convincing?
  5. Is the letter brief and focused? What elements could be eliminated?
  6. Does the writer achieve his or her purpose? Does it make you want to consider the résumé more carefully?
  7. Is the tone of the letter courteous without being too formal, relaxed without being too familiar?
  8. Is the letter’s form appropriate (heading, spacing, greeting, salutation)? Is the letter addressed to a specific person rather than a general “Dear Madam/Sir”?

Résumé

  1. Does the résumé contain the necessary features for the position (name/address, position desired, education, work experience, achievements, relevant personal information, references)?
  2. Does the résumé contain only essential, relevant information for the position required?
  3. Does the résumé emphasize the applicant’s strengths?
  4. Does the résumé emphasize what is unique about this person’s experience? Does it demonstrate a common interest or ability (leadership, teaching experience, dedication, creativity, etc.)?
  5. What additional information might you like to have about this applicant?
  6. If you were leading an interview based on this résumé, what are two questions you might ask?
  7. Does the résumé look neat (appropriate spacing, clear headings, good quality paper)?
  8. Is the résumé easy to read?
  9. Is the information presented as concisely as possible?
  10. Are the elements of each section of the résumé presented in a parallel format and style (begin w/ active verbs, put date in consistent place, use of parallelism for elements, consistent underlining or italics)?

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

0 Thoughts to “Akaidalia Critique Essay

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *