Two general forms are considered here:
The critic may either express approval (or even personal admiration) towards the work by itemizing compliments, or take a faultfinding approach if (s)he is not in support of the document.
Generally, it is good to use a title (or title page) containing information like:
Full details of analyzed work using
an approved
References
Style Guide
by
Your name
Your affiliation
Date of submission
Good style also requires that at least the following sections be included: an overview of the analyzed work, a summary of any good points observed, a summary of any bad points noticed, and a wrap-up of the critique's evaluation of the analyzed work.
Critical analysis of multiple documents
The critic presents the main points/ideas of each individual document, compares and contrasts any similarities and/or differences (also expressing any personal approval or objections), and then concludes with some form of evaluative ranking of the documents.
Generally, it is good to use a title (or title page) containing information like:
Your name
Your affiliation
Date of submission
Good style calls for about the same sections as the "Critical analysis of a single document," explained above. The analyzed works are either cited by the title Critical Analysis on the title or title page, or they may be cited in the overview section. Full details of the analyzed work must appear in a References section that uses an approved References Style Guide.
In any case, a major portion of the text should focus on discussing important points along with the critic's formal analyses and opinions. All comments should remain consistent with a prevailing theme and must be supported by documented facts, formal reasoning, and possibly mathematical proof, if this applies.
NOTE: Be sure to check with your professor regarding any other specific style guides on how the completed critical analysis should be written.
Additional Information