Ocument Critique of the attached document

Consider what the function of the document is (is it designed to persuade someone to do something or to convey an impression on someone). Consider the motices of the originator, and also the effect that it may have had on others. Was the content helpful, informative, or misleading to contemporaries? Are there doubts about precisely what it means? (If not, dont waste space repeating or rewording the content of the document). You can place the document in the context of what was happening at the time, without embarking on a narrative of events.

You can alson consider what use it is to historians. Exactly what are we looking at; a factual account, or a muddled recollection by an old man, or a self-justification. Should we relate it to other documents that we can find? How have historians used it?

The trick is to try and write a kind of essay that remains in touch with the document but ranges round it and the issues it raises. Your reader should be left in no doubt that you are using and referring to the document (and probably others), but you should avoid detailed description, explanation or stylistic criticism, unless these seem particularly problematic or useful to historians.

It may be useful for a writer from the UK to look at this question as it is on British Politics

Ocument Critique of the attached document

This is a document critique of the attached document.

Consider what the function of the document is (is it designed to persuade someone to do something, or to convey an impression of someone). Consider the motives of the originator, and also the effect it may have on others. Was there doubts about precisely what it means? ( If not dont waste space repeating or rewording the content of the document) You can place the document in the context of what was happening at the time, without embarking on a narrative of events.

You can also consider what use it is to historians. Exactly what are we looking at; a factual account, or a muddled recollection by an old man, or self-justification. Should we relate it to other documents that we can find? How have historians used it?

Try and write a kind of essay that remains in touch with the document but ranges round it and the issues that it raises. Your reader should be left in no doubt that you are using and referring to the document, but you should avoid detailed description, explanation or stylistic criticism, unless these seem particularly problematic or useful to historians.

Try not to stray away from the document, this is a critique of the attached document.