Environmental History
History 379
Spring 2024
Critical Book Review
Expectations for a Critical Book Review in an Upper-Division History Class
1. Understanding of the Book: Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the book’s content, including its main arguments, themes, and the author’s perspective.
2. Historical Context: Analyze the book within its historical context. Discuss how the book relates to or contributes to historical scholarship.
3. Critical Analysis: Provide a critical analysis of the book. This should include an evaluation of the author’s arguments, use of evidence, and methodology. Discuss any biases or assumptions you identify.
4. Writing Quality: The review should be well-written, clear, and concise. It should follow the appropriate academic writing conventions, including proper citation of sources.
5. Originality: Your review should offer an original perspective. Avoid summarizing the book; focus on providing your analysis and insights.
6. Structure: The review should have a clear structure, including an introduction that provides an overview of the book and the review, a main body that discusses the book in detail, and a conclusion that summarizes your evaluation.
7. Length: The review should be between 1500 – 2300 words (3 – 5 pages). However, the exact length may vary based on the book’s complexity and the assignment guidelines.
8. References: All sources, including the reviewed book, should be properly cited using the appropriate citation style (e.g., Chicago).
9. Professionalism: The review should maintain a professional tone. While it’s important to provide a critical analysis, avoid overly harsh or unjustified criticism.
10. Timeliness: The review should be submitted by the assigned due date. Late submissions may not be accepted or could result in a reduced grade.
Remember, the goal of a book review is not just to summarize the book but to engage with it critically and thoughtfully. Happy reviewing!
Rubric
|
Criteria |
Excellent (A) |
Good (B) |
Satisfactory (C) |
Needs Improvement (D-F) |
|
Understanding of the Book |
Demonstrates excellent understanding of the book’s content and purpose |
Demonstrates good understanding with minor inaccuracies |
Demonstrates satisfactory understanding with some inaccuracies |
Demonstrates poor understanding with significant inaccuracies |
|
Analysis |
Provides a thorough and insightful analysis of the book’s arguments and themes |
Provides a good analysis with minor gaps |
Provides a satisfactory analysis with some gaps |
Provides a poor analysis with significant gaps |
|
Critical Evaluation |
Provides a balanced and thoughtful evaluation of the book’s strengths and weaknesses |
Provides a good evaluation with minor oversights |
Provides a satisfactory evaluation with some oversights |
Provides a poor evaluation with significant oversights |
|
Writing Quality |
Writing is clear, organized, and free of errors – academically written (professionally written) |
Writing is mostly clear and organized with minor errors |
Writing is satisfactory but has some errors and organizational issues |
Writing is unclear, disorganized, and has significant errors |
|
Citations |
All sources are properly cited with no errors |
Most sources are properly cited with minor errors |
Some sources are properly cited but with some errors |
Sources are improperly cited with significant errors |
