Suggestions as to the methods of work:

Read the preface and other introductory material carefully. After reading the book, consider formally the central theme or subject of the work and how the rest of the work is related to that theme. Consider also what critical comments can be made, and again write down ideas as they occur to you. Some reviewers seek to finish the reading a week of ten days before the review is due. In any case, leave yourself time to revise the review for English, and clearness and copy.

A review usually contains two parts: summary of the book, and critical comment. A skillful reviewer weaves these together. Many reviewers, in the course of their discussion, reflect upon and convey to the reader the answers to three main questions:
 
1. What is the book about? This query of course, leads to others. Does the book have a central theme? Does it argue a thesis? What was the author's purpose in writing the book? He or she may have stated this explicitly in a preface or conclusion; on the other hand it may be implied within the book. How well was the author's purpose accomplished? Was it really accomplish it, or did the author do something else? At some point in the review, try to summarize the theme, or thesis or subject in a single sentence or in a paragraph. In no case, however, should the statement on the content on the book exceed, in this type review, 1000 words.
2. Is the book reliable? One should ask of a non-fiction book not simply, "Is it interesting?" but also, "Is it historically reliable, accurate?" In fact, the last question should come first. History can be readable and interesting, but if it isn't reliable, it isn't history. There is nothing very mysterious about the process of appraising the reliability of a history book, or of any nonfiction account. When the intelligent student hears a bit of unusually interesting gossip in the dormitory, he or she does not swallow it credulously, unquestioningly, at face value. They ask the source of the gossip; ask themselves, who passed it along? What special interest might the teller have in circulating the story? The critical reviewer must learn to cultivate the same reluctance in accepting the written word as that displayed toward idle gossip. He or she must ask of any history book: Who is the author? How old is the author? Has the author written any other books? What were the author's qualifications for writing this particular book? Has the author written any books on a related subject? Is the author a free-lance writer, or a university professor? (Be on guard against both types.)
3. Where did the author secure the information? From primary sources? From travel? From documents? Or from what others have written about the subject (that is, from secondary authorities)? How does the author indicate where the material was obtained--in a bibliography, with footnotes, in the preface, introduction, or acknowledgement, or by casual asides within the text? Sometimes the author provides an appendix of facsimile documents to indicate the material on which the book is based. In whatever ways the author provides the origin of his information, the reviewer should learn to look for them, and should give information in his review as to the nature of the sources on which the author relied. Are the sources of information reliable? Why or why not? Is the book based on contemporary accounts (diaries, letters, speeches, or newspapers) of people who actually saw the event or on flimsy evidence? Are the contemporary accounts credible? If the book is based on secondary sources, are these reputable accounts? Mention precisely what types of books are employed. Does the author use the evidence with care and discrimination? Does the author read into the evidence ideas or facts that are not there?