How to Write an Article Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for College Students

You were handed a journal article and told to review it. Not summarize it, not agree with it, review it. That word trips up a lot of smart students, because a review asks you to do two things that pull in different directions: explain what the author said fairly, then step back and judge how well they said it. Do only the first and you have a book report. Do only the second and you have an opinion with no foundation.

This guide walks you through both jobs, in the order that works. You will read the article a few times, take notes that earn their keep, and turn those notes into a review that reads like it came from someone who understood the piece and had something worth saying about it.

Read the Article Three Times, With Three Different Goals

One read is never enough for a review. Space out three passes, each with a single focus.

First pass: read straight through without a pen. You want the shape of the argument and the author’s overall claim. What are they trying to convince you of? Resist the urge to highlight yet, because on a first read everything looks important.

Second pass: now read to map the structure. Mark the thesis, the main supporting points, and the evidence behind each one. Circle any term you cannot define and look it up before moving on. If the author cites a study, note whether they describe how it was done or just quote its result.

Third pass: read as a skeptic. Where does the evidence feel thin? Does a conclusion reach further than the data allows? Does the author skip an obvious counterargument? These reactions become the backbone of your critique, so write them in the margin the moment they occur to you.

Take Notes You Can Actually Build On

Vague notes force you to reread the whole article when you sit down to write. Precise notes save you an hour. Split your notes into two columns.

In the summary column, capture the author’s claims in your own words, with a page or paragraph reference beside each. If you cannot restate a point without copying the author’s phrasing, you have not understood it yet.

In the analysis column, record your judgments and the specific reason behind each one. Not “weak evidence,” but “claims teen screen time causes anxiety, but the cited study only shows correlation, p. 4.” That specificity is the whole game. A grader can tell in one sentence whether you engaged with the text or skimmed it.

Build an Outline Before You Draft

A review has a predictable skeleton, which is good news when you are staring at a blank page. Here is a structure that works for most assignments.

Introduction. Name the article, its author, and where it appeared. State the author’s central claim in one clean sentence. End the paragraph with your overall verdict, so the reader knows your position from the start.

Summary. In one or two paragraphs, lay out the article’s main points and how the author supports them. Stay neutral here. Your job is to prove you understood the piece before you critique it.

Critique. This is the heart of the review and should be the longest section. Work through strengths and weaknesses, and give each claim its own evidence from the text. Group related points so the section flows instead of listing.

Conclusion. Restate your assessment, note who would benefit from reading the article, and mention any question the author left open.

Write the Critique Around Evidence, Not Vibes

The difference between a C review and an A review lives in this section. A weak critique makes assertions: the argument is unconvincing, the writing is unclear. A strong critique shows its work.

Watch how the second version earns its claim:

Weak: “The author’s evidence is not very strong.”

Strong: “The author claims remote work lowers productivity, but the only support is a single survey of 40 managers at one company (p. 6). Manager perception is not a measure of output, and a sample that narrow cannot speak for the broader workforce the author addresses in the conclusion.”

The strong version names the claim, points to the exact evidence, and explains the gap. You do not need to be harsh to be critical. You need to be specific. Praise works the same way: if the method impressed you, say which choice made it credible and why.

A Short Worked Example

Suppose you are reviewing an article arguing that four-day workweeks improve employee wellbeing. Your notes might produce an opening like this:

In “The Case for a Shorter Week,” Dana Ruiz argues that a four-day schedule raises wellbeing without lowering output, drawing on a 2022 trial across 61 UK companies. The article makes a compelling case for the wellbeing gains, though it treats the productivity question with more confidence than the data supports.

That single paragraph names the source, states the thesis, and previews your verdict. A reader already knows your two-part position: convincing on wellbeing, shakier on productivity. The rest of the review delivers the evidence for each half.

Polish, Format, and Check Your Voice

Before you submit, run three checks.

Match the required citation style. If your instructor asked for APA, format your in-text references and any reference list accordingly. MLA and Chicago have their own rules, and mixing them signals carelessness.

Keep the register formal. Write about the article, not about your feelings toward it, unless the assignment invites a personal response. “The analysis overlooks rural workers” lands better than “I felt the author ignored rural workers.”

Read your draft aloud once. Your ear catches clumsy sentences your eye skips. If a line makes you stumble, your reader will stumble too.

An article review rewards close reading more than clever phrasing. When you can point to the page, name the claim, and explain exactly why it holds up or falls short, you are doing the work a review is meant to do. Everything else is presentation.