I wrote a book review. I don't really know how to write a book review, so I hope you can give some criticism. Thanks.

QuoteThat the Kalashnikov series of rifles and light machineguns has had a profound impact on geopolitics is indisputable. It has been manufactured and distributed in such large numbers that in many places in the world the word "Kalashnikov" (or local slang for the AK) is literally synonymous with "gun." While the influence of the gun is well known, there is much about the origin of Kalashnikov's rifle that is misunderstood. The Gun tells us the story of how the Kalashnikov family of weapons came into existence and it gives us fascinating insight into the ways in which it continues to shape the world in which we live.

The rest is here:
http://looserounds.com/2014/10/09/review-of-the-gun-by-c-j-chivers/

I do write a lot of book reviews. I will read through it over the next day or two and give you some tips. At first blush, just from following the link, I can say at first glance, your review is too long. This is not a criticism, just an observation. After I get a chance to actually read it, I may change that observation.

Thank you. I thought so too, but it seemed like the details were important. Any criticism you can offer would be appreciated.

Length is an issue.

You have overly explained the details. The difference between a book review and a product review is a book is purely subjective to the reader's interest. A gun is tangible, has tangible flaws and functions. You can point out FTF/FTE, length of pull is X, barrel length is Y. A book however is purely subjective to what each reader is going to find fascinating.

So a way of saying things about this book might be "Chiver spends a great deal of time covering the Gatling, Maxim, and Kalishnikove, with a brief discourse into the problems of the M-16. Yet he fails to touch on other key self loading rifles in history. Almost as if he hand picked weapons with Politically Fueled Pasts, Gatling for his devastation, Maxim for his Marketing, Kalishnikov for his success during a turbulent governmental regime and the M-16 for the Politics of trying to make a rifle fail."

Rather than the detail to which you discuss each weapon. You can explain the level of research he did, especially with regards to Kalishnikov, but condense it down. Combine the different paragraphs into a single smaller paragraph.

With a book review, you want to entice the reader with what you leave out. The basics you are going to convey is how well written it was. How easy it was to actually read the material. Do I need an engineering or political degree to understand what the author is writing about? Or can a Non Gun person understand the material, And then describe some aspects of what you particularly liked about what the author covered.

Thank you very much for the feedback. That really helps.

Pinsnscrews, very well done.  People could learn a thing or two about the time you took, to supply and craft your answer for Andrew...Thanks for helping, Good job!   

Thanks. Writing book reviews so I can get more books to read comes in handy.