- Highlights of a review
- 1- Identify the work
- 2- Present the work
- 3- Describe the structure
- 4- Describe the content
- 5- Critical analysis
- 6- Conclusion
- 7- Recommend the work
- 8- Identify the author
- 9- Sign and identify yourself
- References
A review is a text that summarizes the content of a work or event. It selects the most significant of the document, exposes its main ideas, the purpose of the text and its purpose, as well as all the complementary aspects to the text, from the author's point of view.
As a general rule, reviews are usually descriptive, since they report the content without establishing value judgments or conclusions on the part of the author. They can also be critical if the author's judgments are included in it. A good critical writer must avoid favoritism or arbitrariness, must formulate fair value judgments that provoke reflection and that are based on their knowledge of the subject.
The review is a text that introduces or presents the subject under consideration, to invite the reader to read it. The review includes the development or analysis of the topic, the exposition of the arguments, whether for or against, refuting the contrary to the topic that is exposed.
For this, it is helped by examples, data, testimonials, etc. In the conclusion, the reaffirmation of the thesis is added and its consequences are extracted.
There are several types of review depending on the scope. They can be bibliographical or literary when they deal with books; of cinema or television, if they deal with movies, series or television programs; of events and shows, if the reviews deal with plays and concerts; they can also be sports, when they deal with games, teams, etc.; Politics; etc.
Highlights of a review
1- Identify the work
To start with a review, it is essential to identify which work we are referring to. It is necessary to include the essential bibliographic data of the title or article.
The reader must know exactly what work he is referring to at all times. The review must be based on a single work, and not mix it with others, even if they are similar.
2- Present the work
It is one of the important parts of the review, you have to present the work to the reader so that they are interested in it.
In short, a good review writer must be able to convey the essential features of the work at hand.
3- Describe the structure
In the review you have to glimpse the structure that the work you are talking about follows.
If the work is divided into chapters or sections, what is the narrative focus that the author takes throughout the work, etc.
4- Describe the content
A review must perfectly summarize the content of the work we are analyzing, include the most important points.
If it is a critical review, the content must first be described impartially and then the review author's judgments should be published. But the description of the content of the review always has to be neutral.
You need to summarize the texts that are published in the work in a way that explains the main idea of the author, not just the texts that are included and on which the work is based.
It is important to develop it properly, so that the reader has an idea of what to expect and what will be found in the work reviewed.
The theoretical background about the work is usually shown, where everyone who is portrayed within the work is shown.
5- Critical analysis
When an author makes a criticism in his review, it must be based on valid and truthful arguments. For this, it must rely on other theories and knowledge on the subject.
You can include theories of other authors to make the necessary comparisons to support your criticism.
The criticism has to be constructive and contribute something to the subject, it has to be based on verifiable facts so that the reader knows all the possible information.
6- Conclusion
In a review it is important to include a conclusion of the work, a small summary of what has been related previously, the points that can be found for and against it, so that the reader understands the end of the work that he wants to read.
7- Recommend the work
The review should always recommend reading the work being reviewed. Even if the author of the review is contrary to what is published in the work, he should recommend to the readers its reading for contrast and that they formulate their own conclusions.
It is not correct for a review to indicate that a work is bad and should not be read, the review has to be impartial and be based on demonstrable value judgments and in which readers can decide their own opinion about the work.
8- Identify the author
It is important that the image of the author of the work is portrayed in a review. Know what your field of study is, or your life experience, know what led you to make those conclusions and what is based or supported to carry out that work.
It is also good to know who are predecessors and masters of the field, to know what feature of the theory is in their field of action
9- Sign and identify yourself
It is important that the author of a review signs it and that they are not made anonymously.
If a review is done and it is well supported and substantiated, there should be no problem with displaying the name of the person who made that review.
It is not correct for someone to make a critical review of a work anonymously, since that discredits the veracity and validity of the review in question.
References
- LOMAS, Carlos, et al. How to teach how to do things with words: theory and practice of language education. Barcelona: Paidós, 1999.
- CERÓN, Manuel Canales. Social research methodologies. Santiago de Chile: LOM, 2006.
- ÁLVAREZ MÉNDEZ, Juan Manuel. Linguistic theory and language teaching: fundamental texts of interdisciplinary orientation. 1987.
- CASTELLÓ, Montserrat. Learn to write academic texts: copyists, scribes, compilers or writers. JI Pozo and Pérez Echeverría, MP (Coords.), The Psychology of university learning: from the acquisition of knowledge to training in competencies, 2009, p. 120-133.
- MONTOLÍO, Star. Academic and professional writing manual: Discursive strategies. Grupo Planeta Spain, 2015.
- CASTELLÓ, Montserrat. The process of composition of academic texts. Write and communicate in scientific contexts and academics. Knowledge and strategies, 2007, p. 47-82.
- MONTOLÍO, Star; LÓPEZ, A. Discursive specificities of professional texts compared to academic texts: The case of professional recommendation. Academic and Professional Literacy in the XXI Century: Reading and Writing from the Disciplines, 2010, p. 215-245.