A review is not a report. A report summarizes the contents of a source while a review provides its critical analysis. What is the authors agenda if any? The role is to evaluate the source as a potential historical one. What do we learn from this source about past and current societies?
Cite all quotations properly. Use only short, in-text quotations. Do not quote extensively.
If the paper reads like a summary, you are on the wrong path!
Your review should include a bibliographic citation that includes the authors name, the works title, the place of publication, name of publisher, and date of publication.
Divide your review into three parts: introduction, body, and conclusion
In your introduction, provide some basic information about the author and the historical context in which the author functioned. What time period does the source cover? Identify the authors theme or thesis. Why did the author write this work (agenda)? What did the author try to say and how did he/she do it (method)? What are the subtopics in the work (arguments) that support the thesis?
In the body of your paper, explain how the author supports his/her thesis. What specific arguments and supporting evidence (or claims) does he/she use to convince his/her audience to accept his/her point. Do these arguments/evidence/claims sound convincing or not? How so? Make sure to divide the body of your paper into paragraphs (one argument, one paragraph).
In your conclusion, restate the authors thesis and the effectiveness of their argument, try to identify the potential audience of the essay, and assess the authors success in proving their thesis. State the works relevance as a historical source.