- Parts of a review and their characteristics
- Title
- Data sheet or header
- Summary of the text to review
- Critical-argued commentary on the original text
- Conclusions
- Reviewer identification
- Recommendations for writing a review
- References
The parts of a review are the title, the technical sheet or heading, the summary of the text being reviewed, the critical comment, the conclusions and the identification of the author of the review or reviewer.
A review is a short informational piece that refers to a work. It contains a summary of the characteristics, concepts, events, ideas and arguments about the content of said work, be it a book, an article, a play or art work, film, etc., also expressing the point of view of the reviewer.
For example, a review could be made of the film The Godfather (1972) by Francis Ford Coppola, explaining what it is about, the most important things to know about it, and providing an opinion.
The review as a narrative-argumentative text is characterized by presenting in all its parts, key elements of reading and writing, such as objectivity, synthesis, analysis, paraphrase and sustained assessment.
Therefore, the review allows to identify, summarize and present the relevant ideas of a text or work, highlighting the new and important aspects that stimulate personal critical vision, to assess the quality of the works presented and awaken interest in others.
The style that prevails in the review is enunciative and argumentative, because it provides information and tries to convince about the benefits and weaknesses of a work.
According to the content that the review presents, it can be:
- Informative : Provides more specific information about the content of the work.
- Comparison : identify the similarities and differences between some points.
- Evaluative : shows the reviewer's personal critical evaluation, providing their judgment of whether it is worth paying attention to and acquiring it.
- Motivating : presents the benefits and contributions of the work, to awaken the interest of the reader about said work.
- Confirmative : corroborates previously formed ideas about the work.
Parts of a review and their characteristics
Title
In this section, the author can place a short title that describes the work that is the subject of the review, that is related to the content, that impacts the reader and motivates him to read it.
It is recommended to avoid the word “review” in the titles, as well as the name of the original work without accompanying it with other words.
For example, instead of using "Blood Wedding Review" and be more original and play with statements like "Blood Wedding: The Poetry of Violence."
Data sheet or header
In this section the reviewed work is identified, be it theatrical, a book, article, films, etc. Including data such as: author-director, title, publisher-record company, number of pages, place and year of publication, among others.
These should be ordered according to the citation standards for bibliographic references (APA, ICONTEC).
For example, continuing with the work Bodas de Sangre, the technical sheet would be:
- Title: Wedding of Blood
- Author: Federico García Lorca
- Publisher: Cátedra
- Publication date: 1933
- Year of issue: 2007
- No. of pages: 176
Summary of the text to review
Also called "Comment". This section describes in a summarized and synthesized way the original work, the background of the author, the purpose of the work, the structure, the organization, the content, the strategies and techniques to elaborate their productions.
It should be noted that the order to present the abstract is up to the reviewer's preference, however, it can be organized as follows:
- Background: refers to presenting the most information about the author of the original work, the predominant theme, the languages, works carried out previously, and if it belongs to a union or association.
- Sources: the data that supported the author's work and that are the bases of the work are identified.
- Methods : these are the strategies and techniques that the author applied to carry out the work, such as the investigations, the phases that he had to complete to collect the experiences that would give realism to the work.
- Purpose: It consists of specifying the objectives and intentions of the author when carrying out his work.
- Structure and Organization : the order in which the work is presented is described in detail; if it is a book, the chapters that comprise it are indicated, the preface, maps, illustrations, etc.
- Contents: they talk about the topics addressed in the work, that is, the work as such, the plot, the events narrated or the testimonies presented. These must be shown in a selective, condensed and clear manner.
The summary of the text of Bodas de Sangre by the poet Federico García Lorca could be:
«In this work, Lorca recreates a story based on real events of a small Andalusian village in which two families end up confronting each other after a wedding fails to take place because the bride runs away with another man. The Granada-born author sensitizes a tragedy with passion, heartbreak, hatred and love through its almost 180 pages.An edition that compiles a series of illustrations about the true story in which Lorca was inspired to create one of his masterpieces ».
Critical-argued commentary on the original text
This part is one of the most important of the review, since it corresponds to the reviewer's critical analysis, where he presents his personal evaluative judgment, which can be both positive and negative. This criticism must be sufficiently supported and argued.
- Negative aspects or weaknesses: personal opinions and judgments are certainly accepted, as long as the reviewer's critical position is completely focused on the work and uses appropriate language, with ideas on how to improve it, without aggressive words, sarcasm, or disqualification.
- Positive aspects or strengths: positive criticism should focus on relevant, innovative aspects that provide benefits and contributions to a certain area and group. Presented through a simple wording, with appropriate qualifying adjectives, so that the opinion is objective and well supported, without falling into flattery.
Example of critical-argued comment:
«Lorca had already reached a literary maturity that was conceived in Bodas de Sangre, one of his most notable works. In it, the essence of authors from the Golden Age that the Granada-born author studied so much is savored. On each page, as if it were a seamstress, Lorca weaves a tragedy with the needle of the Andalusian passion that he drank so much from in Cowboys fountain ».
Conclusions
This section shows all the information presented in the review in a synthesized way, regarding the author, purpose and content of the work, the reviewer's value judgment with the strengths and weaknesses found.
Conclusion example:
«One cannot pretend to understand Lorca and his work without reading Bodas de Sangre. Andalusia, its characters, its sensitivity, love, death… Everything is reflected in this gift that the poet left us before he was assassinated ».
Reviewer identification
It is placed last. It is important that readers know who the reviewer is, especially if they have a good track record from other reviews made, so they should include their surnames and names, their contacts, such as e-mail, Facebook profile or Twitter account, and they can offer them comments on your review.
Identification example:
E. Jesús Rodicio Etxeberría. Graduated in Hispanic Philology and columnist on Radio Cebollita. Follow me at @vallecanoensevilla or write to me at
Recommendations for writing a review
- Select the work to review, be it a book, text, film, etc.
- Make a preliminary observation about how the work is structured.
- Identify relevant aspects such as objectives, purposes, among others.
- Inquire about the author and the strategies he uses in his productions.
- Read with concentration and understanding, to make notes and annotations with topics covered in the content that you consider of interest.
- Review the notes you have taken and arrange them in a table or diagram, to select the most significant and innovative of the work.
- Develop a model that serves as a guide with the points that the review should have.
- Check that you have the data that will be included in the prepared model.
- Incorporate the information and start the writing.
- Verify that the language used in the criticisms is adequate, without disqualifications or offenses.
- Give a well-founded opinion, without any type of bias for or against.
- Make contributions to the writer on a better vision of their work.
- Read the review to review it and note any corrections.
- Make the changes and present it.
References
- Cubo de Severino, L. (2005). The texts of science. Main classes of academic-scientific discourse. Córdoba, Comunicarte Editorial
- Sánchez, L. (2006). Know how to write. Bogotá, University of the Andes.