Hubbry Logo
ReviewReviewMain
Open search
Review
Community hub
Review
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Review
Review
Review
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A review is an evaluation of a publication, product, service, or company or a critical take on current affairs in literature, politics or culture. In addition to a critical evaluation, the review's author may assign the work a rating to indicate its relative merit.

Reviews can apply to a movie, video game, musical composition, book; a piece of hardware like a car, home appliance, or computer; or software such as business software, sales software; or an event or performance, such as a live music concert, play, musical theater show, dance show or art exhibition. Online review platforms also aim to provide a space where buyers can share authentic experiences—positive or negative—and businesses can use this feedback to improve their services. In the cultural sphere, The New York Review of Books, for instance, is a collection of essays on literature, culture, and current affairs.

In academia

[edit]
Main articles: Scholarly peer review and Literature review

User review

[edit]
Main article: User review

A user review refers to a review written by a user or consumer of a product or service based on the author's own experience as a user of the reviewed product. Popular sources for consumer reviews are e-commerce sites like Amazon.com and Zappos and social media sites like Tripadvisor and Yelp. E-commerce sites often have consumer reviews for products and sellers separately. Usually, consumer reviews are in the form of several lines of text accompanied by a numerical rating. This text is meant to aid in shopping decision of a prospective buyer. A consumer review of a product usually comments on how well the product measures up to expectations based on the specifications provided by the manufacturer or seller. It talks about performance, reliability, quality defects, if any, and value for money. Consumer reviews, also called 'word of mouth' and 'user-generated content' differ from 'marketer-generated content' in their evaluation from consumer or user point of view. They often include comparative evaluations against competing products. Observations are factual as well as subjective in nature. Consumer reviews of sellers usually comment on service experienced, and dependability or trustworthiness of the seller. Usually, they comment on factors such as timeliness of delivery, packaging, and correctness of delivered items, shipping charges, return services against promises made, and so on.

Online consumer reviews have become a major factor in business reputation and brand image due to the popularity of TripAdvisor, Yelp, and online review websites. A negative review can damage the reputation of a business and this has created a new industry of reputation management where companies attempt to remove or hide bad reviews so that more favourable content is found when potential customers do research.[1]

An expert review usually refers to a review written by someone who has tested several peer products or services to identify which offers the best value for money or the best set of features. An example of this is Amazon Vine. Amazon Vine is a program which was introduced to "help their fellow customers make informed purchase decisions".[2] This program is invite-only and is designed to generate reviews for product vendors with whom Amazon works.

One type of user review can be in the physical world, such as a video reviewing a product or software. This is common on platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo.

Book review

[edit]

A book review (or book report) is a form of criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit. It is often carried out in periodicals, as school work, or online. Its length may vary from a single paragraph to a substantial essay. In the case of a work of poetry or fiction, or of nonfiction in which the literary merits of the work are an important element, a review will commonly use the methods of literary criticism. Such a review often contains evaluations of the book on the basis of personal taste. Reviewers, in literary periodicals, often use the occasion of a book review for a display of learning or to promulgate their own ideas on the topic of a fiction or non-fiction work. At the other end of the spectrum, some book reviews resemble simple plot summaries. Reviews of non-fiction works intended for instructional or informational purposes may focus more directly on concerns such as practical usefulness and reader-friendliness.

Music reviews

[edit]

Performance reviews

[edit]

Reviews of live music performances are usually short articles that inform readers about the performers or group(s) that were involved and the performed pieces or songs.

Comments made by reviewers mostly fall either into technical comments or subjective/artistic comments. While technical comments include objective elements of the performance such as mistakes or intonation, the subjective comments refer to elements which are not objective, and are subject to taste, such as interpretation of factors like tempo or dynamics.

The balance between information and commentary depends on the target audience of the review, for example, a music critic writing for the general public (such as in a general newspaper) might put more background information, while a music critic writing for a more informed audience might put more commentary.

Recording reviews

[edit]

Music critics and music writers also review recordings of music, including individual songs or pieces or entire albums. In the case of a review of an entire album, the reviewer will not only judge the individual songs or pieces; they will also judge how well all of the songs or pieces work together or go together.

The age of digital downloads may considerably change the album review. Where previously albums were purchased as collections of songs, often with a common theme, the rise of individual song downloads may have significant impact on consumers' exposure to an artist's music. Die-hard fans will most likely continue to explore an artist's complete work, but individuals will most likely make significantly different choices and "cherry-pick" songs they have been exposed to. The concept of "singles" or individual hits marked for retail has been around for long time; however, the price for a single in the days of CDs or 45's was much closer to the complete album price. When you consider that each song on an artist's album is often priced at the same amount, the odds of the average consumer purchase the entire album instead of selecting the "hit" songs decreases significantly.

Composition reviews

[edit]

In classical music, music critics may also do reviews of compositions, even if the piece or song has never been performed and it only exists on manuscript paper in a score. To review a composition in this fashion, the critic will use music theory skills such as harmonic analysis and thematic analysis, along with their knowledge of idioms and compositional practices etc.

Motion picture, television and video reviews

[edit]

A motion picture review is a work of film criticism addressing the merits of one or more motion pictures. Generally, the term "movie review" implies a work of journalistic film criticism rather than of academic criticism. Such reviews have appeared in newspapers and printed periodicals since the beginning of the film industry, and now are published in general-interest websites as well as specialized film and film review sites. Television programs and other videos are now commonly reviewed in similar venues and by similar methods.

Bought review

[edit]

A bought review is the system where the creator (usually a company) of a new product pays a reviewer to review their new product. Primarily used in the car, movie, and game industry this system creates a kind of undercover advertising. Bought reviews tend to be biased due to the informative value of reviews. In some cases, a bought review may be independent, if the person that is hired to do the review has a strong reputation for independence and integrity. Even if a "bought review" from a respected critic is actually independent, the perception of potential bias will remain, due to the financial relationship between the company and the critic.

A similar type of review that may be biased is the so-called "puff piece", a review of "[a product]", film, or event that is written by a sympathetic reviewer or by an individual who has a connection to the product or event in question, either in terms of an employment relationship or other links. For example, a major media conglomerate that owns both print media and record companies may instruct one of its employees in one of its newspapers to do a review of an album which is being released by the conglomerate's record company. Although some journalists may assert their professional independence and integrity, and insist on producing an unbiased review, in other cases, writers may succumb to the pressure and pen a biased "puff piece" which praises the product or event while omitting any discussion of any shortcomings. In some cases, "puff pieces" purport to provide a review of the product or event, but instead merely provide "peacock words" ("An amazing recording"); "weasel words" and tabloid-style filler which is peripheral or irrelevant to assessing the qualities of the product or event ("During the filming, there were rumors that romantic sparks flew between the two co-leads, who were often seen talking together on the set").

Several online review manipulation strategies have also been reported, such as writing fake reviews and offering monetary compensation to remove negative reviews.[3]

See also

[edit]
Look up review in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Review

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A review is a formal evaluation or critique of a creative work, product, , service, or scholarly , typically involving of its quality, strengths, weaknesses, and overall impact, often written by an expert or critic for in periodicals, websites, or other media to guide or consumption decisions. In and , reviews have evolved as a cornerstone of cultural discourse, originating in the early 18th century with periodicals like The Spectator (1711), which featured essayistic critiques of books, theater, and social customs, marking the shift from private patronage to public literary judgment. By the , dedicated review sections became standard in newspapers and magazines, influencing sales and reputations; for instance, the (founded 1802) set a model for analytical, opinionated commentary that shaped British intellectual life. In the 20th century, specialized outlets proliferated, such as The New York Times Book Review (launched 1896), which has published weekly assessments of , expanding to include diverse genres and voices. Beyond literature, reviews encompass film, music, theater, and consumer goods, with platforms like aggregating critic and audience scores since 1998 to quantify consensus. In academia, —a rigorous evaluation by experts before publication—emerged prominently in the , becoming formalized in journals like those of the Royal Society by the mid-20th century to ensure scholarly integrity. As of 2025, online reviews on sites like or Amazon have democratized critique by blending professional and , though they raise ongoing concerns about and authenticity.

General Concepts

Definition and Scope

A review is defined as a critical assessment or of a work, product, service, performance, or similar subject, often involving a systematic examination to determine its merits, shortcomings, and overall value. This process typically encompasses analysis of the subject's content, structure, and execution, combined with the reviewer's informed opinion, and may conclude with recommendations for potential audiences or stakeholders. Such evaluations serve as a bridge between the creator and the recipient, providing insights that inform judgments on quality and relevance. Key elements of a review include established criteria for judgment, such as the subject's , value for or purpose, , and potential impact, which are applied to gauge against expectations or standards. Reviews can manifest in diverse formats, including written articles, spoken commentary such as podcasts or broadcasts, or visual media like video analyses, allowing adaptability to different platforms and audiences. These components ensure the review not only describes but also interprets the subject, highlighting strengths and weaknesses to foster deeper understanding. The scope of reviews varies widely, from formal assessments in fields like academia to informal user-generated feedback on e-commerce sites. Regardless of format, reviews play a pivotal role in , aiding in purchases, professionals in adoptions, and creators in refinements. Universally, they inform consumer choices by highlighting practical benefits, advance through constructive in intellectual domains, and shape by amplifying or challenging prevailing views on cultural or commercial outputs.

Historical Evolution

The practice of reviewing originated in ancient times, with Aristotle's , composed in the 4th century BCE, serving as one of the earliest systematic critiques of literature, particularly focusing on the structure and elements of and . This work analyzed poetic imitation () and its emotional effects, laying foundational principles for artistic works that influenced subsequent . Parallel traditions of literary developed in other ancient civilizations. In , Bharata Muni's Natya Shastra (c. 200 BCE–200 CE) offered a foundational on , , and performance critique. In , literary emerged in the pre-Qin era (before 221 BCE), with systematic works like Liu Xie's The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons (c. 5th century CE) analyzing poetic forms and styles. In the , arose in the 7th century CE, evaluating poetry and from the outset of the literary tradition. An early formalized practice of review emerged in academia through , beginning with the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions in 1665, where submissions were assessed by experts before publication. During the medieval period, reviews took the form of scholarly commentaries, exemplified by Photius I of Constantinople's Bibliotheca in the , a collection of 279 summaries and critical evaluations of books ranging from classical to contemporary texts, often highlighting strengths in style, content, and theological value. The marked a surge in such critiques with the invention of the around 1440, enabling wider dissemination of texts and leading to early print-based assessments in ; for instance, 16th-century scholars like Lodovico Castelvetro produced detailed commentaries on Aristotle's , debating its application to and poetic rules. The 18th and 19th centuries witnessed the growth of reviews through journalism, as periodicals proliferated and professional critics emerged. The Spectator, launched in 1711 by and , featured essays with literary evaluations, including critiques of works like John Milton's , blending moral commentary with aesthetic analysis to guide public taste. By the , newspapers and magazines established dedicated review sections, professionalizing the role of critics who assessed books, plays, and art in response to expanding and print culture. In the , further entrenched review columns in daily newspapers and magazines, such as The New York Times Book Review, which began as a standalone supplement in 1896 and became a key venue for professional literary evaluation by the mid-century, influencing amid rising book sales. The digital era shifted this landscape from the 1990s onward, with online platforms enabling ; Amazon introduced customer reviews in 1995, allowing consumers to rate and comment on products, while aggregation sites like those for films and books democratized critique beyond experts. This transition expanded access but transformed reviews into a participatory, often anonymous practice.

Academic Reviews

Peer Review Process

The peer review process in academia involves the of scholarly manuscripts, grant proposals, or other research outputs by independent experts in the relevant field to determine their suitability for or . This typically occurs prior to in journals or acceptance for , focusing on aspects such as scientific validity, methodological rigor, , and ethical compliance. The origins of trace back to the , with the establishment of the Royal Society of London in 1660 and the launch of its journal Philosophical Transactions in 1665, which introduced informal refereeing of submissions by society members to maintain quality. While early practices were ad hoc, peer review gained widespread formal adoption in the mid-20th century as scientific publishing expanded, becoming a standard mechanism to uphold research integrity. Common types of peer review include single-blind, where reviewers know the authors' identities but authors do not know the reviewers'; double-blind, in which both parties remain anonymous to minimize ; and open review, where identities are disclosed and reviews may be published alongside the work. Post-publication peer review, conducted after initial release (often on preprint servers), allows ongoing scrutiny and has gained traction in fields like . These types vary by context: journal peer review emphasizes manuscript quality for dissemination, while grant peer review—used by agencies like the (NIH)—often involves panel discussions and scoring on criteria such as innovation and feasibility, potentially leading to different profiles compared to publication-focused reviews. The process generally unfolds in several structured steps. Authors submit their or proposal to a journal or body, where an editor or program officer conducts an initial assessment for scope and completeness. Suitable submissions are then assigned to 2–4 expert reviewers, selected based on expertise and potential conflicts of interest, who provide detailed critiques on , , validity, clarity, and impact, typically within 4–8 weeks. The editor synthesizes these reviews, along with any author , to recommend revisions, , rejection, or further review; authors revise accordingly, and the editor makes the final decision. In grant contexts, this may include meta-reviewer input or deliberation to rank proposals against limited . Peer review ensures research rigor by filtering out flawed work and improving manuscripts through constructive feedback, thereby maintaining public trust in scientific outputs. However, it faces challenges such as delays—sometimes extending by months or years—and biases, including those related to prestige, , or affiliation, which can disadvantage novel or underrepresented research. Efforts to address these include training for reviewers and experiments with alternative models, though the process remains essential despite its imperfections.

Literature Reviews

A literature review serves as a comprehensive synthesis of existing scholarly works on a specific topic, aiming to identify key trends, foundational theories, and research gaps within a field to inform new studies, such as theses, journal articles, or grant proposals. By aggregating and analyzing prior , it establishes the context for ongoing investigations and highlights areas needing further exploration, thereby preventing redundancy and guiding methodological advancements. This process is essential in , as it demonstrates the author's command of the subject and justifies the significance of their proposed . The methodology for conducting a literature review typically begins with developing robust search strategies to locate relevant sources, often utilizing academic databases such as for biomedical fields, , or for broader disciplines. Researchers define inclusion criteria—such as publication date ranges, study types (e.g., peer-reviewed articles), and to the research question—and exclusion criteria to filter out irrelevant or low-quality materials, ensuring a focused and reproducible selection process. Following source identification, thematic synthesis is employed to integrate findings, where qualitative data from multiple studies are coded and grouped into overarching themes, often using tools like for organization, to reveal patterns and contradictions across the literature. Literature reviews are commonly structured with an introduction that outlines the scope and objectives, a body organized chronologically to trace historical developments or thematically to cluster related concepts, and a conclusion that synthesizes implications, such as unresolved questions or future directions. This framework allows for a logical progression that builds toward a cohesive , adapting to the review's goals—whether narrative for exploratory overviews or systematic for rigorous evidence appraisal. Key distinctions exist between and systematic reviews: reviews provide interpretive summaries based on author expertise, while systematic reviews follow predefined protocols for exhaustive searches and bias minimization, often adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, originally introduced in 2009 and updated in 2020, to standardize reporting through a 27-item and . PRISMA ensures transparency in methods, results, and discussion, particularly for reviews involving meta-analyses. Common pitfalls in literature reviews include , where researchers favor studies aligning with preconceived notions, potentially overlooking contradictory evidence and skewing conclusions. Another frequent issue is over-reliance on recent publications, which may neglect seminal older works that provide essential historical context, leading to an incomplete representation of the field's evolution. To mitigate these, authors should document search decisions rigorously and seek diverse sources to maintain objectivity.

Consumer Reviews

User-Generated Reviews

User-generated reviews refer to voluntary feedback provided by everyday consumers about products, services, or experiences, typically shared on digital platforms such as , , and . These reviews democratize information sharing by allowing non-expert users to contribute insights that influence others' decisions, fostering a participatory online ecosystem. Common characteristics of user-generated reviews include star ratings (often on a 1-5 scale), structured pros/cons lists, and free-form narrative comments detailing personal experiences. Many are submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms, which encourages candid opinions but can complicate accountability. The proliferation of user-generated reviews accelerated with the advent of technologies in the early 2000s, which shifted the toward interactive, user-driven content creation. Although early examples like Amazon's customer reviews launched in 1995, broader adoption surged as platforms enabled easy uploading and community interaction. These reviews significantly shape consumer behavior, with studies indicating that 93% of shoppers report that online reviews impact their purchasing choices. Platforms often aggregate reviews through average ratings and sorting mechanisms to highlight top contributions, providing quick summaries for potential buyers. User-generated reviews vary in format and rigor, ranging from brief one-sentence comments to detailed long-form analyses. Some sites, like Amazon, implement verified purchase requirements to ensure reviewers have bought the item through their platform, enhancing perceived authenticity.

Product and Service Evaluations

Product and service evaluations involve structured assessments by experts or testers, targeting tangible like and appliances, as well as intangible offerings such as dining and accommodations. These reviews provide consumers with objective insights into , , and practical , distinguishing them from casual opinions by emphasizing methodical analysis over subjective preferences. Core methods in these evaluations include comparative testing and standardized benchmarks, often conducted in controlled lab environments to measure attributes like durability, efficiency, and reliability. For example, , established in , employs expert-led lab tests that evaluate product performance alongside predicted reliability and owner satisfaction surveys, using criteria such as and scores. Similarly, Wirecutter conducts hands-on testing and long-term monitoring to compare multiple options within categories, ensuring recommendations reflect real-world use. In service-oriented reviews, such as those for restaurants, inspectors apply consistent criteria including ingredient quality and cooking techniques through anonymous visits. Key elements assessed in these evaluations prioritize value for money, usability, and safety, helping consumers weigh cost against benefits like ease of operation and hazard prevention. Formats often feature buying guides that distill findings into ranked recommendations, highlighting top performers based on balanced scores across these factors. For instance, tech reviews from Wirecutter, launched in 2011, emphasize practical usability and long-term value through detailed comparisons of . In the food service sector, the , first published in 1900 to promote , critiques restaurants on value for money, flavor mastery, and consistency, awarding stars to denote excellence. Recent trends show increasing integration of these evaluations with , where sites like Wirecutter incorporate affiliate links to enable direct purchases from recommended retailers, blending content with shopping functionality. Additionally, video formats are rising in expert reviews, particularly on platforms like , to visually demonstrate and features, supplementing traditional written analyses. As of 2025, AI tools are being used to generate review summaries and highlights on platforms like Amazon, aiding quick decision-making while raising questions about authenticity. User-generated reviews occasionally serve as supplementary data to validate expert findings.

Literary Reviews

Book Reviews

Book reviews evaluate literary works primarily for general audiences, assessing their , value, and potential to everyday readers. Unlike more analytical forms of , these reviews aim to guide potential readers in deciding whether a offers enjoyment, educational insights, or emotional resonance. Professional and amateur reviewers often emphasize the book's appeal to non-specialist readers, focusing on how well it engages through narrative flow and relatable themes rather than deep theoretical dissection. Key elements in book reviews include a spoiler-free to outline the story's , analysis of characters' development and believability, and commentary on the author's , such as pacing, quality, and descriptive techniques. Reviewers typically conclude with an overall assessment, often using a like 1-5 stars to quantify appeal and recommend the to specific reader demographics. These components help readers gauge if the aligns with their interests without revealing critical plot twists. Book reviews appear in diverse venues, including established newspapers like , which has published weekly since its inaugural issue on October 10, 1896, and digital platforms such as personal blogs or community sites like , launched in January 2007. These outlets cater to broad readerships, with newspapers offering curated selections and online forums enabling user-driven discussions. Professionally, book reviewers are often literary critics employed by publications or librarians who evaluate titles for , drawing on their expertise in reader advisory services. Reviews in this context typically range from 500 to 1,000 words, allowing space for balanced summary and opinion without overwhelming detail. Culturally, book reviews play a pivotal role in shaping bestseller lists by influencing consumer choices and retailer stocking decisions; for instance, selections by , which began in September 1996, have driven sales increases of over a million copies per title through enthusiastic endorsements. Such impacts highlight how positive reviews amplify a book's visibility and commercial success among general readers.

Journalistic Book Criticism

Journalistic book criticism entails a rigorous examination of a book's themes, its placement within historical and social contexts, the author's underlying intent, and frequent comparisons to contemporaneous or works, aiming to uncover deeper interpretive layers beyond surface-level summaries. This approach distinguishes it from standard book reviews, which primarily function as introductory consumer guides summarizing plot and offering accessibility recommendations, by prioritizing theoretical analysis and socio-political commentary that situates the text within broader cultural discourses. Such critiques often explore how a work reflects or challenges prevailing ideologies, as seen in analyses that link literary motifs to events like industrialization or . Prominent figures in this field include , who served as chief book critic for from 1983 to 2017 and received the 1998 for her incisive, culturally attuned evaluations that influenced public discourse on literature. Outlets like have long championed such criticism through contributors including Elizabeth Hardwick, whose mid-20th-century essays dissected gender dynamics and modernist aesthetics, and , whose 1960s pieces on camp and interpretation blended aesthetic theory with political insight to redefine critical engagement. Contemporary voices at , such as Becca Rothfeld and Jennifer Wilson, continue this tradition by integrating feminist and perspectives into thematic dissections of narrative form. The evolution of journalistic book criticism traces back to 19th-century essays in periodicals, where reviewers like those in Victorian journals treated books as interventions in ongoing social debates, naturalizing interpretive reading amid rising . By the , this form matured into opinion-driven op-eds and features in major newspapers and magazines, exerting significant influence on the literary canon by elevating works through sustained analytical endorsement or critique, as evidenced by The New York Times Book Review's role over 125 years in shaping reader priorities and author legacies. This progression reflects broader journalistic shifts toward contextual depth, transforming isolated assessments into dialogues that inform cultural memory. A core challenge in journalistic book criticism lies in its inherent subjectivity, where personal interpretive lenses can overshadow objective analysis, compounded by historical underrepresentation of diverse reviewer perspectives that limits the range of socio-political insights offered. Post-2010s, industry-wide pushes for inclusivity have addressed this by advocating for more reviewers from marginalized backgrounds, aiming to broaden thematic explorations and counter systemic biases in who shapes literary discourse, though progress remains uneven amid ongoing debates over equitable representation.

Music Reviews

Performance Critiques

Performance critiques in music focus on the live execution of musical events, evaluating aspects such as musicians' technical proficiency, stage presence, and the influence of venue acoustics on the overall audience experience. These reviews typically cover concerts and festivals, assessing how performers deliver notes with precision, including intonation, timing, and dynamics, while considering the ephemeral nature of live events that cannot be replicated exactly. For instance, critiques often highlight instances where a musician's or phrasing enhances emotional depth, drawing from established frameworks that emphasize measurable parameters like variations and pitch accuracy. Historically, such critiques emerged in the through reviews published in concert programs and periodicals, providing early commentary on live premieres. A notable example is the 1808 premiere of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in , which was marred by insufficient rehearsals, cold venue conditions, and orchestral struggles with the score's demands, blending praise for innovation with observations on execution flaws. These early write-ups set a precedent for balancing objective technical evaluation with subjective impressions of the performance's impact. By the mid-20th century, dedicated publications like , founded in 1967, began offering post-event analyses of rock and pop concerts, often detailing crowd energy and performer interaction. Similarly, has since 1996 provided online critiques of indie and festival performances, focusing on how stage dynamics translate to audience engagement. Central to performance critiques is the inherent subjectivity, which weighs technical accuracy—such as flawless articulation and ensemble synchronization—against emotional and the performer's ability to convey intent through and . Stage presence, defined as the performer's command of the space through movement and audience connection, often elevates a technically show, as seen in reviews praising artists who foster intimacy despite large . Venue acoustics play a crucial role, with critics noting how affects clarity and immersion; for example, overly reflective halls can muddy , while well-designed spaces enhance projection and balance. Ratings in these reviews aim for reproducibility by suggesting improvements in or setup, though the live format's variability underscores the blend of precision and spontaneity. The from prompted a shift toward reviewing live-streamed , adapting traditional critiques to digital formats that emphasized virtual presence and technical streaming quality over physical acoustics. Platforms like and Twitch hosted concerts, with reviewers assessing audience interaction via chats and the loss of in-person energy, as in coverage of events by artists like and . These adaptations highlighted new elements like latency and viewer agency, maintaining focus on execution while noting the reduced emotional immediacy compared to in-person events.

Recording and Composition Analyses

Recording reviews primarily evaluate the technical and artistic aspects of music production, including , mixing techniques, and how well the recording aligns with its intended . Critics assess elements such as clarity, balance in , and the overall sonic texture, often highlighting innovative production choices that enhance the listening experience. For instance, reviews of charting on , which has tracked album popularity since the introduction of its comprehensive charts in , frequently praise or critique mixing decisions that affect fit, such as the crisp separation of layers in rock productions or the spatial depth in electronic tracks. Composition critiques delve into the structural and expressive components of original music, focusing on , , and through a . Analysts examine melodic contours for memorability and emotional arc, harmonic progressions for tension and resolution—often referencing common scales like major or minor—and lyrical content for thematic coherence and poetic depth. This theoretical approach, rooted in , allows critics to contextualize innovations, such as unconventional structures that challenge traditional , providing deeper insight into the composer's intent. Specialized outlets have long been central to these analyses, with magazines like Spin, founded in 1985, offering detailed examinations of recordings and compositions that emphasize cultural and innovative impact. Online platforms such as , established in 1991, provide extensive, database-supported reviews that integrate historical context with technical breakdowns. A key trend since the post-2010 rise of streaming services like has been the incorporation of digital metrics into critiques, where reviewers evaluate how compositions adapt to on-demand playback, often influencing awards like the Grammys, whose nominations reflect critical consensus on production excellence and compositional originality. Analytical tools in these reviews typically reference basic musical structures, such as diatonic scales for harmonic evaluation or verse-chorus forms for overall architecture, without venturing into advanced theoretical derivations.

Media Reviews

Film and Video Critiques

Film and video critiques evaluate movies and short videos by assessing narrative structures, technical execution, and cultural significance, often influencing audience perceptions and industry outcomes. These reviews dissect how films convey stories through visual and auditory elements, while video critiques adapt to shorter formats that prioritize immediate impact over extended development. Critics balance objective analysis with subjective interpretation to guide viewers on and entertainment value. The history of film critiques traces back to the 1910s, when trade publications like The Moving Picture World, Variety, and The New York Dramatic Mirror began regularly reviewing films to inform exhibitors and producers about audience potential. One iconic figure, , served as a film critic for the from 1967 until his death in 2013, popularizing accessible yet insightful commentary through his syndicated columns and television show . Ebert's approach emphasized storytelling and emotional resonance, setting a standard for mainstream criticism that endures today. Key elements in film critiques include directing, which shapes the overall vision and coherence; , evaluating performances for authenticity and depth; , assessing visual composition and lighting; and pacing, which determines narrative flow and engagement. Spoiler policies are a critical ethical consideration, with many reviewers issuing warnings or confining major plot revelations to dedicated sections to preserve viewer experiences without compromising . Prominent venues for film critiques include aggregation sites like , launched in 1998 to compile scores from professional reviewers, providing a consensus metric such as the Tomatometer. Film festivals like also serve as key platforms, where premieres draw immediate critiques from international journalists, often shaping global discourse on a film's artistic and commercial prospects. For short videos on platforms like and , critiques differ markedly from those of feature films due to their brevity, typically lasting under , which limits to quick hooks, visual flair, and viral potential rather than nuanced narrative exploration. These formats favor concise opinions and reaction-style commentary, contrasting with the detailed dissections common in traditional film reviews. The impact of film critiques extends to performance, where positive reviews can boost audience interest. Similarly, strong critical acclaim correlates with Oscar nominations, with films boasting high aggregated scores seeing elevated chances for recognition in categories like Best Picture, underscoring reviews' role in awards season momentum.

Television Program Reviews

Television program reviews encompass critiques of individual episodes, entire seasons, or overarching series arcs, evaluating elements such as narrative progression, thematic depth, and structural integrity across multiple installments. Critics often assess writing consistency, examining how , plot development, and character motivations maintain coherence over time, while also addressing disruptions like changes that can alter ensemble dynamics or audience investment. For instance, reviews of long-running series highlight how abrupt departures, such as those due to scheduling conflicts or creative decisions, impact storyline continuity and emotional resonance. The practice of reviewing television programs originated in the 1950s with newspaper recaps and early magazine critiques that focused on live broadcasts and social implications, evolving into more analytical discourse by the . Pioneering outlets like , founded in 1953, provided weekly listings alongside insightful reviews that previewed episodes and analyzed programming trends, establishing a foundation for professional criticism. This shifted dramatically in the 2010s with the rise of enabled by Netflix's 2013 release of House of Cards, which prompted reviewers to consider full-season consumption patterns and long-form storytelling rather than weekly episode breakdowns. Prominent modern outlets include , which offers in-depth episode and season recaps emphasizing cultural context and artistic merit, and awards like the Emmys, whose nominations and wins often amplify critical discourse by spotlighting high-caliber productions. Unique to television reviews is the prevalence of spoiler warnings, which protect ongoing plot developments in serialized formats, allowing critics to discuss twists without ruining viewer experiences. Coverage also distinguishes between reality and scripted programming: scripted reviews prioritize narrative craft and character arcs, whereas reality TV critiques focus on authenticity, participant dynamics, and ethical staging, recognizing the format's emphasis on real-time unpredictability over plotted consistency. Current trends reflect the dominance of streaming over traditional broadcast television, with platforms like and fostering reviews that evaluate on-demand accessibility and global reach. In May 2025, streaming accounted for 44.8% of U.S. TV usage, surpassing cable and broadcast combined, influencing critics to prioritize multi-platform availability and viewer metrics in assessments. Internationally, formats like K-dramas receive widespread reviews for their serialized intensity and cultural export, with series such as earning acclaim for innovative storytelling that bridges Eastern and Western audiences.

Commercial and Ethical Issues

Paid or bought reviews refer to evaluations of products, services, or experiences that are compensated by creators, marketers, or third parties, often without clear disclosure to consumers. These practices violate guidelines established by regulatory bodies, such as the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's 2009 Endorsement Guides, which mandate that any "material connection" between endorsers and sellers— including payments, free products, or other incentives—must be transparently revealed to avoid deceiving the public. The guides were revised in 2023 to address modern practices like endorsements and fake reviews. Failure to disclose such connections can lead to the reviews being classified as deceptive advertising under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Historically, paid reviews trace back to the , when theaters in routinely compensated critics for favorable notices or free tickets in exchange for positive coverage. By the late 1800s, such undisclosed payments contributed to public distrust in media, prompting early calls for ethical standards in criticism. In modern contexts, paid reviews often manifest as , where companies orchestrate fake endorsements through paid writers or bots to simulate organic consumer support for products. For instance, businesses have hired freelancers to post positive reviews on e-commerce sites, mimicking unbiased user feedback while concealing financial incentives, as highlighted in FTC enforcement actions following the 2009 guidelines. A notable example involves , where in 2013, New York authorities fined 19 companies a total of $350,000 for submitting fabricated reviews to boost restaurant ratings, marking one of the first major crackdowns on paid online manipulation in the . Similarly, in 2012, the UK's Standards Authority ruled against for misleading claims about the authenticity of its reviews, leading to a directive to cease assertions of "trusted" or "honest" content without robust verification. E-commerce platforms have responded aggressively to curb these practices. In 2016, Amazon updated its Community Guidelines to prohibit all incentivized reviews tied to free or discounted products, closing a that previously allowed such exchanges except for its program, and began removing thousands of violating posts to preserve review integrity. This policy shift aimed to address biases where compensated reviewers tended to inflate ratings and avoid criticism, as identified in prior analyses of marketplace dynamics. Studies from the early indicate that manipulated reviews, including paid ones, comprise 20-30% of online content across platforms, undermining consumer trust and market fairness by distorting genuine user-generated feedback.

Review Manipulation and Ethics

Ethical principles in reviewing emphasize transparency and independence to maintain public trust. The (SPJ) established its initial Code of Ethics in 1926, drawing from the American Society of Newspaper Editors' canons, which underscored the need for journalists to avoid conflicts and disclose any potential biases in their work. This code has evolved but continues to prioritize acting independently by rejecting favoritism and ensuring reviews are based on merit rather than external pressures. Transparency requires reviewers to reveal affiliations or incentives that could influence their judgments, fostering accountability in professional criticism across media, books, and consumer platforms. Key issues include conflicts of interest and in review aggregation. Conflicts arise when reviewers have personal, financial, or professional ties to the subject, such as affiliations with publishers or producers, potentially skewing objectivity; for instance, a reviewing a from a studio where a relative works must disclose this to avoid perceived bias. in platforms like occurs when filtering systems disproportionately suppress or promote certain reviews based on patterns like reviewer history or , inadvertently favoring established businesses over newcomers and distorting overall ratings. These biases can perpetuate inequalities, as algorithms trained on historical data may amplify existing disparities in visibility for underrepresented creators or products. Manipulation techniques such as sockpuppeting and review bombing further undermine review integrity. Sockpuppeting involves creating multiple fake online identities to post biased reviews, often to inflate ratings or attack competitors, as analyzed in studies of online discussion communities where such accounts post shorter, less substantive content to manipulate discourse. Review bombing entails coordinated campaigns of negative ratings, exemplified by the backlash against the final season of in 2019, where dissatisfied fans flooded with low scores, dropping episode ratings to as low as 4.0 out of 10 and skewing aggregate perceptions. Paid reviews represent one monetary form of such manipulation, but non-financial tactics like these erode authenticity more broadly. Regulations aim to curb these practices through legal and platform-specific measures. The European Union's Directive (EU) 2019/2161 amended the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to explicitly prohibit fake consumer reviews and manipulative practices, requiring platforms to verify review authenticity and inform users about filtered content. In response, platforms like updated its policies in 2021 to enhance detection of fake engagement, including automated removal of suspicious reviews and penalties such as account suspensions for violators. These updates involve to identify patterns like bulk submissions, aiming to preserve the reliability of search and mapping services. The broader impacts of review manipulation include erosion of in critical discourse and calls for advanced verification technologies. Widespread manipulation leads to consumer . In response, post-2020 proposals have advocated blockchain-based systems to and immutably verify reviews, ensuring without central control; for example, decentralized platforms use smart contracts to incentivize genuine contributions while preventing duplicates or fakes in sectors like online grocery. Such innovations seek to restore confidence by providing tamper-proof audit trails, though adoption remains limited due to scalability challenges.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/review
  2. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/review
  3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20132855
  4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Edinburgh-Review-or-The-Critical-Journal
  5. https://shop.mcny.org/products/the-new-york-times-book-review-125-years-of-literary-history
  6. https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/rt-21-fun-facts/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11215012/
  8. https://daily.jstor.org/the-history-of-peer-review-is-more-interesting-than-you-think/
  9. https://oxio.ca/en/blog/articles/how-the-internet-democratized-reviewing
  10. https://theconversation.com/as-yelp-turns-20-online-reviews-continue-to-confound-and-confuse-shoppers-236996
  11. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/review
  12. https://academics.umw.edu/writing-fredericksburg/files/2011/09/Critical-Review.pdf
  13. https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/structure-critical-review
  14. https://uwaterloo.ca/writing-and-communication-centre/critical-analysis-and-evaluation
  15. https://www.anu.edu.au/students/academic-skills/writing-assessment/other-assessments/writing-a-critical-review
  16. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-literary-criticism/aristotles-poetics/901DBEBFF50D43D0709ACF7BBC6C0495
  17. https://disco.teak.fi/asia/bharata-and-his-natyashastra/
  18. https://oxfordre.com/literature/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1141
  19. https://www.britannica.com/art/Arabic-literature/Literary-criticism
  20. https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspective/
  21. https://www.medievalists.net/2024/01/first-book-reviewer/
  22. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/43514/chapter/364255965
  23. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/10864/summary
  24. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/insider/book-review-history.html
  25. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kirimasters/2021/03/22/a-short-history-of-amazons-product-review-ecosystem/
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00951-2
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9251232/
  28. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2307&context=atg
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6893288/
  30. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~nihars/preprints/Shah_Survey_PeerReview.pdf
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319304564
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6862708/
  33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/
  34. https://musc.libguides.com/systematicreviews/eligibilitycriteria
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5235486_%27Methods_for_the_Thematic_Synthesis_of_Qualitative_Research_in_Systematic_Reviews%27
  36. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/conducting_research/writing_a_literature_review.html
  37. https://www.monash.edu/student-academic-success/excel-at-writing/how-to-write/literature-review/structuring-a-literature-review
  38. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
  39. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n160
  40. https://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2535
  41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126701/
  42. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/10/19/8-common-problems-with-literature-reviews-and-how-to-fix-them/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8321450/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/user-generated-content
  45. https://growthspurt.com/history-of-ugc/
  46. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-10-15/amazon-turning-consumer-opinions-into-gold
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9216200/
  48. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G8UYX7LALQC8V9KA
  49. https://www.consumerreports.org/about-us/what-we-do/research-testing/
  50. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/about/
  51. https://data.consumerreports.org/rating-methods/
  52. https://guide.michelin.com/kr/en/article/features/history-michelin-guide
  53. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/02/03/video-marketing-the-future-of-content-marketing/
  54. https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/amazon-ai-generated-review-highlights
  55. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/book_reviews.html
  56. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-write-a-book-review
  57. https://www.goodreads.com/about/us
  58. https://libguides.ala.org/marketing-to-libraries/reviews
  59. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/book-reviews/
  60. https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~sorensen/papers/bookreviews.pdf
  61. https://www.oprah.com/oprahsbookclub/how-oprahs-book-club-came-to-be
  62. https://www.nielsen.com/insights/2011/the-oprah-effect-closing-the-book-on-oprahs-book-club/
  63. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-englishcomp2/chapter/approaches-to-literary-criticism/
  64. https://libguides.uj.edu/english/reviews-criticism
  65. https://guides.library.duq.edu/c.php?g=637023&p=4458204
  66. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/business/media/michiko-kakutani-times-book-critic-steps-down.html
  67. https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/michiko-kakutani
  68. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/12/11/what-we-learn-from-the-lives-of-critics
  69. https://lithub.com/meet-the-literary-critics-who-are-keeping-the-culture-honest-and-sometimes-spicy/
  70. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/magazine/inside-the-push-to-diversify-the-book-business.html
  71. https://www.slj.com/story/when-publishing-and-reviewing-diverse-books-is-expertise-overrated-opinion
  72. https://transactions.ismir.net/en/articles/53
  73. https://symposium.music.org/49/item/9222-evaluating-music-performance-politics-pitfalls-and-successful-practices.html
  74. https://inmozartsfootsteps.com/820/beethovens-5th-symphony-and-its-problematic-first-performance/
  75. https://www.classical-music.com/articles/beethoven-what-did-19th-century-think
  76. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-live-reviews/
  77. https://pitchfork.com/tags/live-review/
  78. https://www.careersinmusic.com/stage-presence/
  79. https://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/2015/sep/09/tips-venue-acoustics-pitch-perfect
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8180877/
  81. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/mar/19/best-livestreamed-gigs-coronavirus-john-legend-chris-martin-code-orange
  82. https://www.billboard.com/pro/billboard-chart-history-evolution-milestones/
  83. https://musicreviewworld.com/review-criteria-rating-system-at-music-review-world/
  84. https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/advice/how-to-write-an-album-review
  85. https://www.theknowledgeacademy.com/blog/music-analysis/
  86. https://learn.socratica.com/en/topic/analysis-and-criticism
  87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1xp3t38
  88. https://www.spin.com/2025/05/spin-origin-story/
  89. https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-story-of-allmusic-the-internets-largest-most-influential-music-database/
  90. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/03/charted-the-impact-of-streaming-on-the-music-industry/
  91. https://behavioralscientist.org/how-winning-or-losing-a-grammy-changes-the-music-artists-make/
  92. http://www.micrologus.com/tools/online_harmonic_analyzer
  93. https://3brothersfilm.com/blog/2018/7/23/7rnnqs20722u62gz2hhwmrmwar1ut4
  94. https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/a-leave-of-presence
  95. https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/9-tips-for-writing-a-film-review/
  96. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-a-movie-spoiler-definition/
  97. https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-rotten-tomatoes-20170721-htmlstory.html
  98. https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/festivals/cannes
  99. https://nofilmschool.com/tiktok-vs-youtube-better-filmmakers
  100. https://www.screendaily.com/news/study-how-slated-rotten-tomatoes-can-predict-oscar-success/5114464.article
  101. https://fiveable.me/tv-writing/unit-3/character-consistency-episodes/study-guide/eU0OyEeAbkIA0Xvw
  102. https://blog.celtx.com/story-arc/
  103. https://electricliterature.com/before-the-internet-tv-guide-was-the-place-for-smart-criticism/
  104. https://www.itsabouttv.com/2018/04/tv-guide-first-25-years.html
  105. https://www.avclub.com/
  106. https://www.theringer.com/2024/09/16/tv/emmys-2024-winners-best-tv-shows
  107. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/apr/12/spoiler-people-need-to-stop-ruining-the-plot-of-tv-shows
  108. https://www.southuniversity.edu/news-and-blogs/2016/08/reality-tv-low-cost-programming-that-produces-high-ratings-119585
  109. https://www.nielsen.com/news-center/2025/streaming-reaches-historic-tv-milestone-eclipses-combined-broadcast-and-cable-viewing-for-first-time/
  110. https://time.com/7201080/best-k-dramas-2024/
  111. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/federal-trade-commission-announces-updated-advertising-guides-combat-deceptive-reviews-endorsements
  112. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
  113. https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/the-thunderer-by-christopher-mckane-review-008w6hbvg
  114. https://www.bigcommerce.com/glossary/astroturfing/
  115. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24299742
  116. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16823012
  117. https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/03/amazon-bans-incentivized-reviews-tied-to-free-or-discounted-products/
  118. https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13155578/amazon-incentivized-reviews-ban-vine-program-product-bias
  119. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8294234/
  120. https://spjethics.org/faq/
  121. https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics/
  122. https://www.cjr.org/analysis/conflict-of-interests-new-york-times.php
  123. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/35902/38056
  124. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162523008892
  125. https://cs.stanford.edu/~srijan/pubs/sockpuppets-www2017.pdf
  126. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/unfair-commercial-practices.html
  127. https://searchengineland.com/how-google-and-yelp-handle-fake-reviews-and-policy-violations-374071
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720924000393
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.