The reviewer should keep in mind that the audience for the review is generally broader than just other specialists. Excessive references to the literature in the field take up valuable space and are unnecessary unless a particular point of contrast needs to be made. The reviewer need not demonstrate his/her own expertise; this is assumed. References by the reviewer to his or her own work are usually inappropriate.

A good book review gives a clear indication in one or two sentences of the subject of the book and of its particular focus. The scope of the study should be made readily apparent, and the thesis should be explicitly articulated by the reviewer, even if the author left it rather less so. The reviewer should try to convey something of the substance of the book; there is not room to summarize the entire work, but the review should not be so full of critique that the reader is left wondering what the book says. The organization of the book should be pointed out and the form or course of the argument summarized as succinctly as possible so that the reader understands the method and approach that the author has brought to bear on the subject. Judicious use of brief quotations can be very effective and at the same time convey both style and point of view, but they should always be cited by page number.

There is plenty of room for analysis, criticism, and praise in the review, but experienced reviewers know that sometimes a well-placed adjective can be more effective than an entire paragraph of explanation. Readers should encounter a straightforward assessment of the originality of the work and where it fits into the historiography, but there is not space for a litany of other books and articles. It is often good to recount the most salient features of the author's analysis, but it may not be possible to enumerate them all. There should always be an indication of the types of sources that have been consulted together with an assessment of how effectively they have been used. The review might indicate how readable the book is, and for whom, by commenting on style. The critic should point out significant errors or omissions, but a long recitation of minor errors is not appropriate or useful. There should be an indication of who would enjoy or benefit from reading the book as well as some statement as to its overall contribution.

Writing an effective, balanced, fair, and informative book review--in just a few hundred words--is an art. Not every scholar is suited to it, but when it is done well the reader has a good sense of whether a book will be of use or interest and of just how and why it might be so, together with some important information on the subject at hand and where it might fit into our knowledge of the past.