How to write a review of a thesis. How to Write a Review: Ground Rules Review Definition
Approximate review plan (the order of points is arbitrary)
1. Bibliographic description of the work:
b) for a film, play - the name, stage director, theater (what do you know about it), in what year the play was staged.
3. The plot of the work, the most striking episodes (explain the choice).
5. Features of the genre and composition.
6. Evaluation of the skill of portraying heroes, acting.
7. Problems of the work, its relevance and significance.
8. Writing techniques, directorial findings (creative interpretations, impressions from stage design, musical accompaniment, special effects).
10. Personal impressions of the reviewer (should be traced throughout the entire work; did your expectations coincide with what you read, what you saw). One moreoptionplanwritingreviews:
1) What is the general impression of the performance? Did your previous ideas about characters match those you got from acting?
2) How did the ensemble manage to convey the main theme and idea of the play?
3) Which of the actors played the role most convincingly, originally? If you have seen this actor in a different role, what, in your opinion, appeals to him more?
4) What seemed not very scenic, lackluster in the acting comedy?
5) What more - tragic or comic - did you see on stage?
6) If you have previously seen this performance performed by actors from another theater, staged by another director and other performers, then compare the game.
7) How does the stage setting (costumes, sets, lighting, props) and music help to enhance the impressions of the performance?
8) The performance as a whole is the success of the cast and director.
Note!
It is necessary to distinguish between such genres of essays as review and feedback.
Review- the impression made by the book, film, performance. The review expresses an opinion about the plot and heroes of the work, but there are no details of the analysis.
Review- a critical review of a book, film, play, containing analysis and detailed assessment based on personal impressions. The review expresses its attitude, analyzes the merits and demerits of the work, features of the composition, the author's techniques for portraying heroes and events, traces the features of the genre, conflict, speech, etc.
|
Review |
Review |
|
|
Peculiarities genre |
A detailed statement of an emotional and evaluative nature about a work of art, containing the opinion and argumentation of the reviewer |
A detailed critical judgment about a work of art, which is based on the analysis of a work of art in the unity of its content and form |
|
Target |
1) Give a reasoned interpretation and assessment of the ideological and artistic originality of the work. 2) The same as in the review |
|
|
Features of the approach |
The argumentation system is based on personal reading experience, taste and preferences. Literary heroes, as a rule, are regarded as human characters, types; an assessment is given from the moral, ethical, moral positions, the relationship of the characters, their behavior. The conclusion reflects the life position of the author of the essay, his personal qualities, attitude to certain aspects of life that have found embodiment in a literary work |
The review is dominated not by an emotionally subjective (like it - not like it), but an objective assessment. The reader acts as a critic and researcher. The subject of research is the work as a literary text, the author's poetics, his position and means of expression (problems, conflict, plot-compositional originality, character system, language, etc.). The independent thinking of the author of the review is determined not so much by the form of the statement ("I think ...", "in my opinion ..."), but by the individuality of the style, the depth of judgment, freedom of association, and convincing arguments. The review does not claim to be complete, it should reveal the most striking and significant aspects of the work, its features. In terms of style, the review can be journalistic, be polemical, or it can gravitate towards the genre of essays, literary articles |
|
Building |
I. A narrative about the reading habits of the author of the essay, the history of his acquaintance with the given work, the reading process, etc. A thesis in which the assessment of what has been read is briefly formulated. II. The reasoning in which is substantiated, the stated assessment is argued: 2) an overview (not a retelling!) Of the events depicted by the author, the most important episodes; 3) assessment of the behavior of the characters, their participation in the depicted events, attitude towards the characters, their fates; 4) the result of reasoning (thoughts and feelings of the author of the essay in connection with the reading). III. A generalization, in which the assessment of a given work is given in comparison with other works of the same author, an intention is expressed to continue acquaintance with his work, an appeal to potential readers is contained, etc. |
I. Justification of the reason for reviewing (new, "returned" name, new work of the author, work of the author - a noticeable phenomenon of literature, controversy around the work of the author, the relevance of the problematic of the work, anniversary of the author, etc.). The most accurate indication of the 1st edition of the work. Thesis-assumption about the historical and cultural value of the studied text. II. Interpretation and assessment of the ideological and artistic originality of the work. 1) Analysis of the name (semantics, allusions, associations). 2) The way of organizing the story (on behalf of the author, hero, “story in story”, etc.), other compositional features and their artistic role. 3) Characteristics of the problematic, artistic conflict and its movement in the development of the plot. 5) Other means of expressing the author's position (author's description, lyrical digressions, landscape, etc.) and their assessment. 6) Other features of the author's style and method. III. Conclusion about the artistic merits of the studied text and its significance for the literary process, social life. An invitation to controversy. |
"Recipe for success,
The salt of luck -
Hardworking patience.
And without patience they mean little
And insight
And skill ... "
L. Tatyanicheva
WE WRITE A REVIEW
"Friendly Sonnet"
(dedicated to the reviewer who will take this joke personally)
My friend, here's some advice:
If you want to live in the world
For as many years as possible
In peace, health and advice -
Breathe fresh air
No special claims;
If you're stupid, don't write like that,
And especially reviews.
B. C. Kurochkin
Review (from Lat. Recensio "consideration") - a review, analysis and assessment of a new artistic, scientific or popular science work; genre of criticism, literary, newspaper and magazine publication.
The review is characterized by small volume and brevity.
The reviewer deals primarily with novelties, about which practically no one has written yet, about which a definite opinion has not yet been formed.
In the classics, the reviewer discovers, first of all, the possibility of her relevant, cutting-edge reading... Any work must be considered in the context of modern life and the modern literary process: to evaluate it precisely as a new phenomenon. Such topicality is an indispensable sign of a review.
By essays-reviews we mean such creative works:
- a small literary-critical or journalistic article (often of a polemical nature), in which the work in question is an occasion for discussion of topical social or literary problems;
- an essay that is more lyrical thinking of the author of the review, inspired by the reading of the work, than its interpretation;
- a detailed annotation, which reveals the content of the work, the features of the composition and at the same time contains its assessment.
A school examination review is understood as a review - a detailed annotation.
A rough outline of a review of a literary work.
- Bibliographic description of the work (author, title, publisher, year of issue) and a short (in one or two sentences) retelling of its content.
- Direct response to a work of literature (feedback-impression).
- Critical analysis or complex analysis of the text:
- meaning of the name
- analysis of its form and content
- composition features
- the author's skill in portraying heroes
- individual style of the writer - Reasoned assessment of the work and personal reflections of the author of the review:
- the main idea of the review
- the relevance of the subject matter of the work
The review does not necessarily have all of the above components, the main thing is that the review is interesting and competent.
Peer review principles.
The impetus for creating a review is always the need to express your attitude to what you read, this is an attempt to understand their impressions caused by the work, but on the basis of elementary knowledge in the theory of literature, a detailed analysis of the work.
The reader can say "like it or not like it" about a book or movie they have read without proof. And the reviewer must carefully substantiate his opinion. deep and well-reasoned analysis.
The quality of the analysis depends on the theoretical and professional training of the reviewer, his depth of understanding of the subject, the ability to analyze objectively.
The author's "I" manifests itself openly in order to rationally, logically and emotionally influence the reader. Therefore, the reviewer uses language means, combining the functions of naming and evaluation, book and colloquial words and constructions.
Criticism does not study literature, but judges it - so that to form readership, public relations to certain writers, to actively influence the course of the literary process.
Briefly about what to remember when writing a review:
A detailed retelling reduces the value of the review: firstly, it will not be interesting to read the work itself; secondly, one of the criteria for a poor review is rightly considered substitution of analysis and interpretation of the text by its retelling.
Every book begins with a title, which in the process of reading you somehow interpret, guess, guess. The name of a good piece is always ambiguous., it is a kind of symbol, metaphor.
Much for understanding and interpretation of the text can give composition analysis... Reflections on what compositional techniques (antithesis, circular construction, etc.) are used in the work will help the reviewer to penetrate the author's intention. What parts can the text be divided into? How are they located?
It is important to evaluate style, originality of the writer, to disassemble the images, artistic techniques that he uses in his work, and think about what his individual, unique style is, how this author differs from others. The reviewer examines the "how it was done" text.
A school review should be written as if it were nobody. the examination committee is not familiar with the peer-reviewed work... It is necessary to assume what questions this person may ask, and try to prepare in advance the answers to them in the text.
Dear teachers!
13 19 225 0
A review is a small piece of text or writing that describes or evaluates a piece of literature.
The task of the reviewer is an objective assessment of the work, that is, all its advantages and disadvantages, which explains the high requirements for the author of the review.
Reviewing different writing subjects is done by different people too. A film critic does a film review. The scientific advisor is responsible for the review of the article. Authors tend to review books. These reviews have different writing rules.
An example of a review plan:
- A small bibliographic description of the work and a short retelling of the plot.
- Reviewer's response to the work itself.
- Criticism or analysis of the work.
What the reviewer analyzes:
- The meaning of the name.
- Analysis of the form and content.
- The skill of the author and his way of presenting the main idea.
- Description of the individual style of the writer.
- Evaluation of the work and reflections of the author of the review over the work: the main idea of the review.
- Relevance of the work.
How to make a good review
- In order to make a quality review, it is necessary to consider the quality of writing a work of art and highlight the originality of the plot in it.
- The entire review must be written in one tone - it can be: funny, edifying or informative.
- In the review, it is imperative to highlight all the mistakes the author made in his work.
- In the review, it is desirable to express all the feelings that the reviewer experienced when reading or viewing the work.
- State all your thoughts in detail and as reasonably as possible.
- The review must not contain profanity or incitement to violence.
What should not be allowed when writing a review
- The review is written in the form of a simple retelling of the work.
- Lack of argumentation.
- Unclear thoughts of the reviewer.
- Too many descriptions of secondary details.
- Illiterate use of literary terms.
Book review
To write a quality book review, you need to read a lot in order to learn how to make comparisons.
You need to start writing a book review with the title, because the title is the face of any article. Next, proceed with a short description of the main characters and events from the book. Try to highlight each character by name so that the reader understands who is being discussed.
After describing the events and characters, proceed to reveal the main idea of the work (What does the author want to say? What problems does he highlight? What does he want to teach?) And evaluate the work from your point of view.
Movie review
- Title.
First of all, it is the title that should interest the reader. Come up with an interesting headline, if you have no imagination, you can paraphrase the brightest quote from the movie or something like that. It will be very good if you put the whole essence of the film in a nutshell in the title.
- Introduction.
An interesting title should be followed by an even more interesting text, so that the reader, after reading the first two sentences, does not take his eyes away from your "masterpiece". 4-5 sentences will be enough for an introduction, in them you should put a few general phrases about the film, as you would have done it by advising your friends.
- Brief plot.
The plot should be described as briefly as possible, while not revealing to the readers the main points and twists that take place in the film. Never write about the ending, as then all your readers will curse you. But if the movie is bad, you can open the curtain a little so that the reader does not waste his time watching a movie that nobody wants.
- Film analysis.
In this part, describe the professionalism of the team that made the film. Celebrate acting, cameramen, directors. Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the film.
- Your viewing experience.
Your personal opinion about the film must match the above text. Be as objective and adequate as possible.
- Conclusion.
Finally, briefly summarize what you have written. Rate the movie and highlight the audience that will enjoy it the most.
Scientific article review
Information that must be stated in the review of the article:
- Full information about the title of the article.
- A brief description of the main topic of the article.
- The level of relevance of the article content.
- Reviewer's recommendations for making changes to the article.
- Information about the reviewer: full name and the date the review was written.
In the 21st century, the amount of information consumed by humans has increased so much that methods to filter out unnecessary data are more relevant than ever. Among them, one can single out peer review, which gives a short and succinct description of the material proposed for acquaintance. However, not only journalists and professional critics should master this art, peer review is also used in scientific activities. Let's consider how to write a review of an article.
The review header always looks standard. The full name of the material being assessed, the surname, name and patronymic of the author, the position he occupies is certainly mentioned here. Next, you need to briefly describe the problem that this article is devoted to. Sometimes it will indicate which method was used to conduct the research. For example: “This article presents the results of research on the efficiency of using the natural resources of the Krasnoyarsk Territory. The data were obtained by studying the geographic, ecological and natural resource potential inherent in the Krasnoyarsk Territory. " To be correct, you must indicate the degree of relevance of the topic. Here you can use the following phrases: "the relevance of this topic is beyond doubt", "the article given is undoubtedly timely", etc. For example: improvements ". The next point is to highlight the most significant aspects that are touched upon in the article, indicate how extensive the work has been done by the author in the area under study, how valuable his developments and suggestions are. For example: “The author has done serious work to identify the influence of feedback on the success of foreign language acquisition by students of technical specialties. It is especially worth noting that A.G. Efimova points to the decisive role of the teacher in the learning process, since in the conditions of a modern university it changes from directive-teaching to guiding. Accordingly, the author points out the need to revise the existing stereotype of the learning process ”. The next point is the recommendation of the reviewer for the publication of the material. It should be written here that a scientific article (indicate the author and title) fully meets the existing requirements for works of this kind, and can be recommended for publication. When a full assessment of the material is given, the reviewer must indicate at the end his last name, first name, patronymic, academic title and degree, place of work and position. Put a stamp and sign on the document. To write a review of an article, you can use the most typical phrases in this case:- in this work, the author considers ...
- the author's point of view is well argued and supported by indisputable facts ...
- among the strengths of the work are ...
- the conclusion about ...
- this article is of great theoretical importance, since ...
- the peer-reviewed article is a serious research work on a rare and, at the same time, important topic ...
- the article touches on an important point about ...
- the presented material is the result of a detailed analysis ...
- the relevance of this study lies in ...
How do I write a review and review?
Review- this is a written analysis of a scientific text (article, term paper or thesis, manuscript, dissertation). The review plan includes:
1) the subject of analysis (topic, genre of the work under review);
2) the relevance of the topic of the term paper or thesis, dissertation, article, manuscript;
3) a summary of the reviewed work, its main provisions;
4) general assessment of the work by the reviewer;
5) shortcomings, shortcomings of work;
6) the conclusions of the reviewer.
Review gives only a general description of the work without detailed analysis, but contains practical recommendations: the analyzed text can be accepted for work in a publishing house or for an academic degree.
Typical plan for writing a review and feedback
Relevance of the topic. ( The work is devoted to an actual topic ... The relevance of the topic is due to ... The relevance of the topic does not require additional evidence (no doubt, it is quite obvious ...).
Formulation of the main thesis. ( The central issue of the work, where the author has achieved the most significant (noticeable, tangible ...) results, is ... The article reasonably brings to the fore the question of ...).
Overall assessment. ( Evaluating the work as a whole ... Summarizing the results of individual chapters ... Thus, the work under consideration ... The author showed the ability to understand ... systematized the material and summarized it ... The author's undoubted merit is a new methodological approach (the proposed classification, some clarification of existing concepts ...), The author undoubtedly deepens our understanding of the phenomenon under study, reveals its new features ... The work undoubtedly reveals ...).
Disadvantages, shortcomings. ( At the same time, the thesis that ... The disadvantages (shortcomings) of the work should include those admitted by the author ... (insufficient clarity in the presentation ...), The work is structured irrationally, it should be shortened ... (provided with recommendations), A significant drawback of the work is ... The noted shortcomings are purely local in nature and do not affect the final results of the work ... The noted shortcomings of the work do not reduce its high level, they can rather be considered wishes for the further work of the author ... The shortcomings mentioned are not so much related to ... how much...).
- Characteristics of the hero Pechorin, Hero of our time, Lermontov
- Short biography of Leo Tolstoy: the most important events
- The ninth wave analysis of the picture
- Essays for all classes
- Vasily Stalin's children their fate
- How many peoples live on the territory of Russia
- The most numerous peoples in the world
- Biography Where did Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich serve?
- Theater "baikal" is the best dance group in russia!
- Mussorgsky short biography and interesting facts
- The image of Tatyana Larina in the novel “Eugene Onegin The character of the main character
- The play "Thunderstorm" and its heroes
- The history of the creation of the novel crime and punishment of dostoevsky
- The main characters of Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorms"
- A short image of Khlestakov in the comedy "The Inspector General": a man without moral principles
- Characteristics of Tatyana Larina Portrait of Tatyana Larina in the novel Eugene Onegin
- The image of Tatiana Larina in the novel "Eugene Onegin Tatiana in the story of Eugene Onegin
- The play "The Thunderstorm" and its heroes Speech characteristics of the heroes of the thunderstorm quotes
- The image of the Box in the poem 'Dead Souls' N
- Analysis "The Cherry Orchard" Chekhov Questions for the analysis of the play Cherry Orchard