Any person who writes a review should adhere to certain ethical rules. The reviewer’s work requires a lot of work and serious preparation: it is necessary to refresh your knowledge on the topic, get to the heart of the material, pay attention to all sides of the message. During the reading, the reviewer should make brief remarks that will help to restore the details of the source text in memory. Check all the numbers, dates, names given by the author. The review should be business, concrete, benevolent. It is not ethical to impose one’s own tastes on the author of the peer-reviewed work. The opinion of the reviewer should not depend on personal relationships. The reviewer is not an auditor who has been given the task to carry out a sudden check, and not the judge who passes judgment. In the review should be expressed the position of its author. The authority of the reviewer is determined by his competence and benevolence. Therefore, categorical remarks (if they are even correct in substance), unwillingness to listen to the author – are unacceptable. After reading the reviewer should talk with the author, briefly inform him of his feedback on the composition
Before writing a review, you need to think through a specific plan
Sample plan (school) that will help write a review: brief bibliographic information about the book, the meaning of the title of the book, personal impressions of the read, features of the plot and composition, relevance of the problems, language and style of the work, the mastery of the author of the book in depicting the characters of the characters the main idea of the review.
Typical plan for writing a review. Topic Relevance. (The work is devoted to the actual topic .., The relevance of the topic is determined …). Formulation of the main thesis. (The central issue of the work, where the author has achieved the most significant (noticeable, tangible …) results, is …). Summary of the work.Overall assessment. (Estimating the work as a whole .., Summarizing the results of the individual chapters …, Thus, the work under consideration …). Drawbacks, shortcomings. (At the same time, it raises doubts about the thesis about that .. The noted shortcomings of the work do not reduce its high level, they can rather be considered as wishes for the further work of the author …). Conclusions. (The work deserves a high (positive, positive, excellent) evaluation, and its author is undoubtedly worthy of the required degree … The work satisfies all the requirements …, and its author, of course, has (certain, legal, well-deserved, absolute) right …).
It is necessary to clearly represent on what topic the review is written.
If a review is written on a film or a performance based on a literary work, then one should remember that it is necessary to write who wrote the script, who put the film or performance, to compare the director’s plan with the literary work, to note the actors’ play, the decorations, .
Some questions that help to sort out the review:
– What book reviews the author of the review, when it was published, where?
– To what kind of conditional can this review be attributed?
– What is the author’s assessment of the book?
– How to justify your assessment, as the reader is convinced?
– What methods of text analysis does the reviewer use?