Writing a review

A review combines information with judgement. It gives readers enough understanding of a book, film, game or other subject to follow your opinions, then explains whether it deserves their attention. A verdict such as ‘excellent’ is only a starting point: the reader needs to know what makes it excellent and whether those qualities would appeal to them.

A review is therefore different from a summary. A summary tells us what happens; a review selects details and evaluates their effect. Describing a game's difficult puzzles provides information. Explaining that their difficulty makes each solution satisfying develops an opinion.

Information and opinion should work together throughout. Balance does not mean giving equal space to praise and criticism. You can write an enthusiastic or disappointed review, provided your judgement is convincing and supported.

The Eduqas task and its marks

Component 2 is a two-hour examination. Section B contains two compulsory writing tasks, worth 20 marks each. A review can be either task; in summer 2025 it was Question 2.2. That question asked for a review for a school/college magazine, choosing one of six subjects: music, a computer game, a film, a podcast, a TV series or a book. The paper asked students to aim for about 300–400 words per task.

For each task, AO5 carries 12 marks for communication and organisation: shaping relevant ideas, developing them and adapting the writing to its audience and purpose. AO6 carries 8 marks for vocabulary, sentence structure, spelling and punctuation. Although a review evaluates its subject, this is a writing task assessed through AO5 and AO6, not the reading objective AO4.

Allow about 30 minutes per writing task, including a few minutes to plan and check. Protect time for the second response rather than allowing the first to expand indefinitely.

Examiners judge each assessment area by best fit. They consider the quality of the writing as a whole, rather than awarding a mark whenever a particular device appears. In broad terms, Band 1 writing communicates basic relevant material; Band 2 begins to give reasons but develops them only partly. Band 3 offers clear, organised opinions with support. Band 4 develops well-chosen detail fluently and securely. Band 5 sustains a particularly assured voice, convincing development and sophisticated shaping. For AO6, the progression is from limited control towards precise vocabulary, purposeful sentence variety and virtually complete accuracy.

Choose details that matter to your audience

For a school or college magazine, your readers are fellow students. An engaging, conversational voice can suit them, while accurate Standard English keeps the review clear and suitable for publication. Direct address can help, but audience awareness also comes from the interests you discuss: whether a podcast holds attention, whether a game rewards patience or whether a book offers a worthwhile break from studying.

Choose something real you know well, so that you can discuss it in depth and support your opinions with accurate details. Depending on the task, useful details might include:

• Film or TV series: performances, a particular scene, pacing, dialogue or the soundtrack.
• Book: a character's choices, narrative voice, setting or the way tension develops.
• Computer game: controls, level design, challenge, atmosphere or replay value.
• Podcast: the presenter's delivery, explanation of ideas, interview questions or episode structure.
• Music: a particular track, lyrics, instrumentation or contrasts across an album.

The same approach can work for an event review when a task permits one: select aspects such as performances, atmosphere or organisation. Always follow the actual question's choices.

For every detail, ask: What does this show about the subject's quality, and why would my reader care? A paragraph about a soundtrack should do more than say that music plays during a scene. Explain whether it builds suspense, overwhelms the dialogue or creates a memorable atmosphere.

Shape a clear line of judgement

Begin by naming your subject and giving readers a sense of your verdict. A heading can introduce both: ‘A small adventure with a big imagination’ is more informative than ‘My review’.

Give only the background needed to understand your judgements. Then organise paragraphs around aspects of the subject, not every event in chronological order. Develop each aspect through a judgement, a specific detail and an explanation of its effect. This is a useful thinking process, not a compulsory sentence formula.

A limitation can sharpen your recommendation. ‘The opening is slow’ becomes more useful when you explain what slows it down and which readers might mind. Keep a consistent overall viewpoint: a mostly positive review can acknowledge a weakness without suddenly declaring the whole subject worthless.

End with a recommendation that follows from the discussion. Say who is likely to enjoy the subject and why, rather than simply repeating that it is good.

From assertion to developed judgement

For this worked response to the summer 2025 task, suppose you are reviewing a computer game called Lantern Harbour, in which players restore light to a coastal town.

Here are weaker and stronger approaches side by side:

The weaker version states enthusiasm but gives the reader little basis for trusting it. The stronger version identifies a feature, explains its effect and relates the recommendation to a particular audience.

Before writing the full response, make these decisions:

1. Overall view: an absorbing game, with a slow opening.
2. Supporting aspects: exploration and atmosphere; satisfying puzzles; less successful introductory dialogue.
3. Order: introduce the verdict, establish the experience, develop the strongest feature, qualify the praise, then recommend.
4. Voice: friendly enough for fellow students, but precise rather than dependent on slang or exaggerated praise.

A complete stronger response

Lantern Harbour: a small adventure with a big imagination

Looking for a game that gives your thumbs a rest without switching your brain off? Lantern Harbour is a puzzle adventure set in a coastal town where the streetlights have mysteriously gone dark. Your job is to restore them. That sounds modest, but the result is an absorbing adventure that turns observation into its greatest reward.

Instead of racing towards a flashing marker, you explore narrow streets, listen to residents and work out how each district fits together. A discarded sketch or an oddly positioned mirror can become the clue you need. The town feels like somewhere worth investigating, not merely a corridor between puzzles. Its gentle soundtrack helps too: soft piano notes leave space for the creak of boats and the wash of the tide.

The puzzles are the real attraction. One asks you to redirect a beam of light through an abandoned lighthouse: the solution feels earned because the game lets you experiment rather than announcing the answer. Better still, earlier challenges quietly teach the skills needed later. When a complicated arrangement finally clicks, you feel clever, not lucky. For anyone who enjoys solving problems but dislikes being rushed, that patient approach is a considerable strength.

There is a drawback, however. The opening conversation runs on long after you understand your mission, and several residents repeat information you already know. More concise dialogue would make the first stretch sharper. If you want constant action, this leisurely beginning could test your patience; I wanted less explanation and more exploration. Fortunately, once the harbour opens up, exploration becomes much more rewarding. The slow start is a weakness, not a reason to abandon the whole adventure.

So, should Lantern Harbour be your next game? If you enjoy exploring at your own pace and noticing small details, this is an easy recommendation. It offers thoughtful challenges in a setting that feels welcoming rather than exhausting. Players seeking rapid competition should look elsewhere. For the rest of us, there is something wonderfully satisfying about bringing a darkened town back to life, one carefully placed beam at a time.

How the puzzle paragraph earns its effect

The third paragraph develops one aspect rather than jumping between unrelated compliments.

• ‘The puzzles are the real attraction’ — AO5: the topic sentence makes a clear judgement and gives the paragraph direction.
• The lighthouse example — AO5: a specific feature gives substance to the opinion. The explanation about experimentation shows why that feature succeeds.
• ‘Better still’ — AO5: the link moves the discussion forward, adding the idea that earlier puzzles prepare players for later ones.
• ‘You feel clever, not lucky’ — AO5 and AO6: direct address engages the student reader; the short, balanced contrast expresses the reward precisely.
• The colon after ‘lighthouse’ — AO6: it introduces an explanation of the preceding example. Its job is to clarify the relationship, not merely display punctuation.
• The final sentence — AO5 and AO6: it identifies who would appreciate the game, using a controlled complex sentence to connect preference and recommendation.

These choices contribute to the overall judgement; they do not each earn a separate, guaranteed mark.

Judging the complete response

An examiner would award this response 18/20: AO5 Band 5, 11/12; AO6 Band 4, 7/8.

For AO5, the best fit is Band 5. The review sustains an assured relationship with its readers and develops its verdict through relevant detail. Its shaping does more than arrange separate points: the opening establishes observation as the game's central reward, the middle explains how that reward works, and the ending returns to the image of restoring light. The criticism also refines the recommendation by distinguishing patient explorers from action-seeking players. This gives the response sufficient sophistication for the lower mark in Band 5, without the exceptional depth and ambition needed for 12.

For AO6, the best fit is the top of Band 4. Precise vocabulary, purposeful sentence variation and accurate punctuation support meaning throughout, with secure tense and agreement. However, the vocabulary is not sufficiently wide-ranging and ambitious for Band 5's 8 marks. Accuracy alone does not determine the band.

The central lesson is not to reproduce this wording. It is to make your own details do useful work: inform the reader, justify your judgement and guide a decision.