The following is how I need the essay to be structured.

Answers to the following seven sections must form the substance of the review. Answer each of them in the order given, each with a separate paragraph or series of paragraphs.

1. What is the authors purpose in writing the book? (Use verbs such as “seeks,” “wishes,” “desires,” “wants”)

2. What is the books thesis? (Use verbs such as “argues,” “contends,” “asserts”)

3. How does the author organize material?  What is the logic behind the topics of the chapters, and how do the chapters go together to form the book? There is almost always a fit between the thesis of a book and the logic of the books organization.  Each points to the other.  Thus, if in doubt about the thesis, pay attention to the organizational logic.  In the review, include an explicit statement about the fit between the books organization and its thesis.  This section can also include a brief summary of the book, but make sure that the summary is tied to the issue of organization.

4. To what subfield of history (such as social, political, economic, foreign relations, or cultural and intellectual history) does the book belong?  How so?  Does the book fit into a particular school of history? How so? Does the author discuss employing or being guided by any notable methodologies (particular ways of studying history, such as quantitative history) or academic theories (particular ways of thinking, such as feminist or postmodern theories), and, if so, which ones?  If the author does not discuss methodology or theory, note their absence.     

5. What primary sources (sources created during the time of the books subject) does the author use to develop the thesis of the book, and why does the author use these particular sources? Do not give just a list of sources; discuss types of sources used and the reasons for relying on certain kinds of sources. Include an explicit statement about the books most significant primary sources in light of the authors thesis. What are the most important secondary sources (sources created after the time of the books subject) for the author? Why?

6. Does the author discuss the historiography (the past writing and arguments by historians) of his or her books subject matter?  If yes, how so?  If no, note its absence.  How is the book similar to or different from the textbook? Beyond adding more detail, how does the book fit in with the issues raised and discussed in the course reading?  In particular, does the book add a different perspective?  How so? Does anything discussed in the book connect to an issue in present-day America?

7. How well does the author accomplish the purpose? This section provides an opportunity to make an original, critical evaluation of the book. Address the issues of what is well done, poorly done, and originally done. What are the books overall strengths and weaknesses?  Are the authors arguments and uses of evidence, in particular, clear or unclear, strong or weak, convincing or unconvincing? Should a reader agree or disagree with the authors thesis and conclusions? If a reader is curious about the books subject, should he or she choose this particular book?