The Parts of a review Are the title, the technical file or header, the summary of the text that is reviewed, the critical comment, the conclusions and the identification of the author of the review or reviewer.
A review is a short informative brief that refers to a work. It contains a summary of the characteristics, concepts, events, ideas and arguments about the content of such work, be it a book, an article, a play or art, film, etc., also expressing the viewer's point of view.
The narrative as argumentative narrative text is characterized by presenting in all its parts, key elements of reading and writing, such as:
- The Objectivity
- The Synthesis
- The analysis
- The Paraphrase
- Sustained valuation
Therefore, it allows identifying, summarizing and presenting the relevant ideas of a text or work, highlighting the novel and important aspects that stimulate the personal critical view, to assess the quality of the works presented and to arouse interest in others.
The style that prevails in the review is enunciative and argumentative, because it contributes information and tries to convince about the benefits and weaknesses of a work.
According to the content presented in the review, it can be:
- Informative It offers more specific information about the content of the work.
- Comparative Identifies similarities and differences between some points.
- Valuable Shows the personal critical assessment of the reviewer, providing his judgment of whether it is worth paying attention and acquire.
- Motivator Presents the benefits and contributions of the work, to awaken the reader's interest in the work.
- Confirmatory Corroborates previously formed ideas about the work.
Parts of a review
Title
In this section, the author can place a short title that describes the work object of the review, that relates 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 of other words.
Datasheet or header
This section identifies the work reviewed, whether 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 rules for bibliographic references (APA, ICONTEC).
Summary of the text to be reviewed
Also called"Comment". This section describes in a summarized and synthesized form the original work, the author's background, the purpose of the work, the structure, the organization, the content, the strategies and techniques to elaborate his productions.
It should be noted that the order to present the summary is to the preference of the reviewer, however, can be organized as follows:
- Background : Refers to presenting the most important information of the author of the original work, the prevailing theme, the languages, works previously done, and whether it belongs to a guild or association.
- Sources We identify the data that supported the work of the author and are the basis of the work.
- Methods It is about the strategies and techniques that the author applied to carry out the work, such as the research, the phases that had to fulfill to gather the experiences that would give realism to the work.
- Purpose: It consists of specifying the objectives and intentions that the author had in performing his work.
- Structure and Organization The order in which the work is presented is described in detail; If it is a book, indicate the chapters that comprise it, the preface, maps, illustrations, etc.
- Contents: There is talk about the topics covered in the work, ie the work as such, the plot, the facts narrated or the testimonies presented. These should be shown selectively, condensed and clear.
Critical-argumented commentary on the original text
This part is one of the most important of the review, since it corresponds to the critical analysis of the reviewer, where he presents his personal valuation judgment, which can be both positive and negative. This criticism must be sufficiently sustained and argued.
- TO Negative aspects or weaknesses Certainly opinions and personal judgments are accepted, as long as the reviewer's critical position is completely centered on the work and handles appropriate language with ideas of how to improve it, without aggressive words, sarcasm, or disqualification.
- Positive aspects or strengths Positive criticism must focus on the relevant, innovative aspects that bring benefits and contributions to a particular area and group. Presented by simple wording, with qualifying adjectives, so that the opinion is objective and well sustained, without falling into flattery.
CONCLUSIONS
This section shows all the information presented in the summary in a synthesized way, referring to the author, purpose and content of the work, the value judgment of the reviewer with the strengths and weaknesses found.
Identification of the reviewer
It is placed at the end. It is important for readers to know who the reviewer is, more if they have a good track record for other reviews, so they should put their names and names, their contacts, such as e-mail, Facebook profile or Twitter account, and can offer Comments from your review.
Recommendations for a review
- Select the work to be reviewed, 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 that he uses in his productions.
- Read with concentration and comprehension, to make notes and annotations with topics covered in the content that you consider interesting.
- Review the notes you have taken and order them in a table or outline, to select the most significant and innovative of the work.
- Elaborate a model that serves as a guide with the points that the review should have.
- Check that you have the data to be included in the prepared model.
- Incorporate information and start writing.
- Verify that the language used in the criticisms made is adequate, without disqualifications or offenses.
- Give a well-informed opinion, without any kind of bias in favor or against.
- Make contributions to the writer about a better vision of his work.
- Read the review to review it and note the corrections.
- Make the changes and present it.
References
- Cubo de Severino, L. (2005). The texts of science. Main classes of academic-scientific discourse . Córdoba, Editorial Comunicarte
- Sánchez, L. (2006). Know how to write. Bogotá, Universidad de los Andes.