Think about the author: Who wrote this? What is their background? Why and when did they write this? Does this impact the content of the reading (validate or invalidate it?) Who is their target audience? What do they want you to get out of the reading?

Think about the reader: What do you want to get out of the reading? Does your purpose accord with the author's aims? What assumptions do you have about the topic?

Identify the thesis of the reading. What is the point of the reading?

Sketch an outline of the reading (main topics and sub-topics)

What issues are presented? How are they organized? Might they be organized better or differently?

What are the key terms and how are they defined? (With a dictionary? By etymology? Functionally?)

What claims are made?

Are these claims: self-evident? Clearly stated? Too general? Presented in a balanced or loaded way?

How are these claims supported? Are there appeals to authority? Who or what? Is data used? What kind? Are logical arguments made? Are they valid and reasonable?

Is this support adequate?

Are there any hidden assumptions that underpin the argument? Does the author presuppose things that you cannot agree with, or are the presuppositions reasonable? Does the author have a bias that mitigates the persuasiveness or validity of the reading? Does the author distinguish his or her opinion from fact or from the opinion of others?

What are some of the implications of the article's thesis and claims? What are possible counter-arguments to the author's claims? Does the author consider implications and counter-arguments?

What is the source or criteria or standard of your evaluation?

Do you have your own appeals to authority? If so, what or who, and can you justify it? Are you solely looking at the logic of the argument?

Do you have your own 'axe to grind'?