What do they say about other historians’ arguments? Who do they agree/disagree with, and why? [This is
where historians position themselves with regard to the historiography or the secondary literature and say how
their argument contributes to existing debates or raises new questions or approaches].
What evidence/sources is the author drawing upon? What kind of material is this? Imagery, textual, artefacts?
What do you find convincing about the article and why? What do you find unconvincing about the article and
why?This is the most important section. This is where you show your critical reading and critical analysis of the
article. Does the author manage to persuade you of their argument? Do the ways in which they use the
evidence to substantiate (back up) their argument work well or not? Telle me what you think, but make sure
you back this up with evidence from the article
Sample Solution