As I mentioned on my previous post, Guidelines for Writing Fiction Critiques, the most important guideline for a critique is to give an honest, constructive, and polite assessment of the writing. All comments should be about the words written, not about the person writing them.
Here are the steps I follow when doing a thorough critique of nonfiction:
1. Overall Impressions: Evaluate the work as a reader.
a. Content: Does it open with something that captures your attention and makes you want to keep reading? Does the pace seem appropriate for the type of information being covered? Can you clearly identify the subject or main idea? Is the main idea supported by evidence, anecdotes, interviews, viewpoints, or some other method?
b. Audience: Is it clear who the target audience is for the book, article, or essay? Is the tone, language, and reading level appropriate for that audience?
c. Format: Is it following standard submission guidelines for that type of work, or is it tailored towards guidelines of a specific market? Is it organized logically, so the reader can follow the development of the topic or progression of the events?
2. The Mechanics: Evaluate the work for structural strengths and weaknesses.
a. Structure: Were paragraphs and sentences appropriate in length for the type of information presented? Would varying their length add interest or adjust the pace more effectively? Does the choice of words feel appropriate? Is the information presented in a way that the target audience will find easy to understand? Does the conclusion summarize the main points effectively, or bring the work to a satisfying end?
b. Grammar: Are there obvious mistakes in grammar and spelling? Are there too many clichés in the narrative or dialog?
c. Extras: If there are sidebars, charts, graphs, pictures, or other supporting documents, do they support the premise, theme, arguments, or hypothesis? Are they formatted properly and annotated in the body of the work?
For related information on creative nonfiction, see my post from 3-12-09.
Have I overlooked any important topics to be covered in a nonfiction critique? What are you most interested in when someone critiques your nonfiction writing?
The Writing Place 
This is great, Carol. You have a very constructive approach and are very thorough. I always think critiquing non-fiction is much harder than critiquing fiction. It’s so much more reader specific, if that makes sense.
Thanks, Carol. Most of my early career was spent analyzing nonfiction and interpreting it for others. It’s actually easier for me than fiction as I sometimes just don’t “get” what is going on in fiction.
Carol
You use a great method, Carol. A good critique takes time and effort. So often writers get a quick pass platitude. When someone actually takes the time to do a real crit it is a true gift.
~jon
Jon, you’re right about thorough critiques taking a lot of time. When I first started critiquing other people’s work on forums several years ago, I spent hours on them. I eventually decided it was taking too much time away from my own writing and other responsibilities, and cut back drastically on the number of critiques I do. I still try to point out obvious problems, or offer encouragement, but I only do thorough critiques for people I’ve come to know and respect.
Carol
[…] When giving a critique, it is best to know exactly what a real, fair critique is. If you’re looking for a critique, do not go to your family members. A critique is an unbiased criticism of an artist’s piece with the intent to make it better. Carol Benedict brings up another great point about critiques: “…the most important guideline for a critique is to give an honest, constructive, and polite assessment of the writing. All comments should be about the words written, not about the person writing them” (x). […]
[…] https://thewritingplace.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/guidelines-for-nonfiction-critiques/ – how to critique non-fiction […]