Unless the article is very explicit about the analytical framework it is using ("in this article, I will show why a Foucauldian-Marxist-Braudelian analysis shows..."), you will need to know the frameworks pretty well to be able to name them. Or at least know the little shibboleths that are used by people to hint at their frameworks, usually little bits of jargon that tell those in-the-know what they are talking about, but look mysterious to those outside of these discussions (e.g., "subaltern" has a really specific set of literature and frameworks associated with it).

If you are not trying to name them, then your job is simply to look at what kinds of things the historian in question thinks are interesting, what they take for granted, what they are arguing against. Are they focused on the large scale movements of history, or the small scale? Are they looking at "prominent figures" or just everyday people? Are they trying to make it clear that what they are interested in has to do with the various implications of gender, social/economic class, racial relations, science and technology, or what? What do they appear to think is a valid/interesting form of argument?

To do this is tricky if you haven't read a lot of articles (because you need to be able to contrast different approaches to really see them; one of my advisors always loved to give us the exercise in grad school of trying to imagine how a different person with a different framework would look at the same historical or analytical issue — how would a Latourian study this problem? a Kuhnian? etc.), and made all the more tricky because history (unlike, say, analytic philosophy) can "hide" its frameworks in narrative (I could tell you a story that is very rooted in a framework yet makes no explicit call-outs to it; an expert would be able to say, "oh, that's a very Marxist approach" without me saying the words "class struggle" or "the means of production," but a non-expert would just think I was telling a story that might focus on how different groups of people regarded each other and how their jobs played into it). Additionally, in history you don't need to have any allegiance to a particular framework or another. That doesn't mean that all historians don't have frameworks (anybody who thinks they don't is just lying to themselves and haven't tried to articulate it), but it means that I can write a history article without saying to myself, "ah, here is the framework I am intending to use!" Anyone except the very doctrinaire use lots of influences from all sorts of frameworks these days.

The biggest "hint" at frameworks for any kind of academic is who they cite, because that's who they think is important for their approach and is also a reflection of who they read and who they are talking to. If you dig through citations (especially the kinds of journals that get cited), the frameworks will start to jump out.