John Bukowczky’s review of In Sight of America is one of basic praise. Bukowczky discusses how the book and Pegler-Gordon, as the author, bring new insight into both the specific field of immigration but also histories on race could also use this book as Bukowczky said. Bukowczky does say that Pegler-Gordon could be giving too much order to the immigration policies of the turn of the Twentieth Century. Krystyn Moon focuses much more on what the article specifically states. Moon divides the book into three parts and explains both what Pegler-Gordon writes but also her own understanding of the text. Moon also begins and ends the article with her opinion of the article in a very formulaic approach. David Hernandez’s approach to writing a review on Pegler-Gordon’s book was to write to create an argument. Hernandez does still discuss the plot of the book as with Moon, but Hernandez does not just give a summary of the plot like parts . Hernandez give just enough plot to understand the what the book was saying while using the rest of the review to back the argument that Pegler-Gordon’s book is all about race and their stereotypes during this time. Hernandez also gives a specific reference to one example of Pegler-Gordon to make this point, that of the ‘paper son’ ploy by Chinese migrants. Hernandez, in the end of her review, does state her opinion of the book that it is exceptional for demonstrating the strain between execution of immigration policy and the policy itself which from my understanding is a peripheral argument of the book. Hernandez’s review seems to be the prime example of a book review, just enough written so the reader knows what the book is about, examples taken from the book to prove evidence for your argument for the main argument of the book, and at the end give your opinion of the said book.