What is this book about, most simply? How is it structured? How does the structure relate to the author’s strategy for exposition? What are the central arguments presented? With whom, if anyone, is the author arguing? About what? To what extent are her/his main claims persuasive? Why so or not? What historical literature(s) are presented. How are these related or background works evaluated? What advance over existing treatments is promised. To what extent is this achieved? What are the core concepts (and/ or theories) employed? How are they defined and used in the relation to historical sources? What sorts of evidence are referenced and to what purposes? Where in the narrative does the author bring forth evidence that might be crucial to his/her central arguments? Are there spots where the evidence seems thin? Does this matter, and if so, why? Any indication of the author’s ideological commitments or claims? Within what historical setting is the argument developed? How is this context framed in the terms of period, place, detail and depth? For what audience is this work intended? How do you know this? Is it effective in reaching the audience. Why or why not? Overall, what strengths and weaknesses would you identify in this study (issues of content, style research achievements, etc.)? Of what value is the work, and to whom? Why? What lines of inquiry might be extended out from it? Think specifically of topics, concepts, materials, regions, periods.