- Plagiarism checker Do The Check
- Academic editing Ask For Help
- Samples database View Samples Base
How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step
20 Feb 2023
❓What is an Article Critique Writing?
📑Main Steps How to Critique Article
☝️Article Critique Outline
📝Article Critique Formatting
✒️Write a Journal Article Critique
📃 Write a Research Article Critique
🔍 Article Critique Research Methods
✅An Article Critique Tips
Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don't worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we'll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we'll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we'll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.
Is writing essays your hobby?
Participate in our "Independence Day of the United States" essay writing competition and get a 12-month Quizlet subscription.
- Deadline: July 24, 2023
- Topic: Declaration of Independence
- Language: English
- Length: 1000-5000 words
- Font size: 11 or 12
What is an Article Critique Writing?
An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.
To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article's purpose. Then, you should outline the article's key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author's points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.
Need help with an article critique?
Get your paper written by a professional writer
How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
If you are wondering "what is included in an article critique," the answer is:
An article critique typically includes the following:
- A brief summary of the article .
- A critical evaluation of the article's strengths and weaknesses.
- A conclusion.
When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author's purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author's main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author's interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.
When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:
- Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author's argument.
- Take a look at the author's perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author's point of view?
- Carefully examine the article's tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
- Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
- Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
- Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
- Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?
Stuck with finding the right title?
Get plenty of fresh and catchy topic ideas and pick the perfect one with PapersOwl Title Generator.
Article Critique Outline
When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.
An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.
- The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
- The critique's main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
- The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.
You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.
Article Critique Formatting
When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.
Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.
Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.
Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.
Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.
Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.
Build your thesis statement
This is AI-powered online tool that lets you create a thesis statement about any topic you need.
- Simple interface
- Works with any type of paper
- Absolutely free
- Unlimited attempts
How to Write a Journal Article Critique
When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:
- Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author's ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
- Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author's introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
- Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article's strengths and weaknesses.
When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author's argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article's main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.
It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author's argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.
How to Write a Research Article Critique
When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author's chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author's work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?
Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.
However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.
- Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
- Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
- Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
- Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
- The purpose of the study
- The research question or questions
- The methods used
- The outcomes
- The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
- Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
- Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade
Check the originality of a paper with just a couple of clicks.
- Free unlimited checks
- Accurate results
- All common file formats
- Intuitive interface
Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.
Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment's effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.
Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people's thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.
Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.
Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies' results to understand a treatment's overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.
Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.
More than just a spell check
Editors on PapersOwl can edit your paper and give recommendations on how to improve your writing:
- Sentence structure
- Academic style
Tips for writing an Article Critique
It's crucial to keep in mind that you're not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.
- Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
- Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
- Use evidence from to support your points.
- Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.
It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.
Was this article helpful?
Thanks for your feedback.
Prof. Linda Mia
I’ve worked for the past eight years as a content editor, creative writer, and professional essay writer. Every day, I work hard to make sure my clients are satisfied with the projects and papers I write for them. My areas of expertise are wide, ranging from Psychology and Sociology to Political Science and World History.
WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!
Simply fill out the form, click the button, and have no worries!
How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process
Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.
How to Critique an Article: Short Description
In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!
What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation
An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.
For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.
In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!
Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique
Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:
- Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
- Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
- Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
- Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
- Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.
How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow
The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:
Step 1: Read the Article
The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:
- Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
- Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
- Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.
Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.
Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches
Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:
- Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
- Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
- Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
- Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.
Step 3: Format Your Paper
Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:
- Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
- Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
- Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
- Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
- Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
- Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.
How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps
So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:
Step 1: Understanding the Research Context
Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.
Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure
Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.
Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology
Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.
Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results
Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.
Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions
Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.
Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations
Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.
Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses
Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.
Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback
Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.
Step 9: Presenting Your Critique
Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.
By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!
Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?
Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.
An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research
In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:
- Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
- Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.
Format and Structure:
- Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
- Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.
Depth of Analysis:
- Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
- Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
- Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
- Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.
- Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
- Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
- Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
- Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
- Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
- Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.
Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.
Article Critique Example
Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.
Tips on How to Critique an Article
Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:
1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.
2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.
3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.
4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.
5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.
What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?
To write an article critique, start by thoroughly reading the article to understand its main arguments and supporting evidence. Evaluate the author's perspective, writing style, and potential biases. Assess the article's contribution to the field and offer constructive feedback. Organize your critique coherently, highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and implications. Remember to provide evidence and examples to support your analysis, contributing valuable insights to the academic discourse.
What Is the Recommended Length for an Article Critique?
The length of an article critique typically ranges from 800 to 1,200 words. However, this can vary depending on the specific requirements set by the instructor, journal, or publication guidelines. Some academic institutions may specify a particular word count or page limit for article critiques. In cases where there are no strict word count restrictions, it's essential to strike a balance between providing a thorough analysis and maintaining conciseness in your critique. A well-crafted article critique should be comprehensive enough to cover the key aspects of the article being analyzed while also ensuring that the analysis remains focused and coherent within the given word limit.
In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!
Tired of Ordinary Critiques?
Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!
Writing a Critique Paper: Seven Easy Steps
Were you assigned or asked by your professor to write a critique paper? It’s easy to write one. Just follow the following four steps in writing a critique paper and three steps in presenting it, then you’re ready to go.
One of the students’ requirements I specified in the course module is a critique paper. Just so everyone benefits from the guide I prepared for that class, I share it here.
To standardize the format they use in writing a critique paper, I came up with the following steps to make their submissions worthwhile.
Since they are graduate students, more is expected of them. Hence, most of the verbs I use in writing the lesson’s objectives reside in the domain of higher thinking skills or HOTS.
Table of Contents
Step-by-step procedure in writing a critique paper.
I quickly wrote this simple guide on writing a critique paper to help you evaluate any composition you want to write about. It could be a book, a scientific article, a gray paper, or whatever your professor assigns. I integrated the essence of the approach in this article.
The critique paper essentially comprises two major parts, namely the:
1) Procedure in Writing a Critique Paper, and the
2) Format of the Critique Paper.
First, you will need to know the procedure that will guide you in evaluating a paper. Second, the format of the critique paper refers to how you present it so that it becomes logical and scholarly in tone.
The Four Steps in Writing a Critique Paper
Here are the four steps in writing a critique paper:
To write a good critique paper, it pays to adhere to a smooth flow of thought in your evaluation of the piece. You will need to introduce the topic, analyze, interpret, then conclude it.
Introduce the Discussion Topic
Introduce the topic of the critique paper. To capture the author’s idea, you may apply the 5Ws and 1H approach in writing your technical report.
That means, when you write your critique paper, you should be able to answer the Why , When , Where , What , Who , and How questions. Using this approach prevents missing out on the essential details. If you can write a critique paper that adheres to this approach, that would be excellent.
Here’s a simplified example to illustrate the technique:
The news article by John Doe was a narrative about a bank robbery. Accordingly, a masked man (Who) robbed a bank (What) the other day (When) next to a police station (Where) . He did so in broad daylight (How) . He used a bicycle to escape from the scene of the crime (How) . In his haste, he bumped into a post. His mask fell off; thus, everyone saw his face, allowing witnesses to describe him. As a result, he had difficulty escaping the police, who eventually retrieved his loot and put him in jail because of his wrongdoing (Why) .
Hence, you give details about the topic, in this case, a bank robbery. Briefly describe what you want to tell your audience. State the overall purpose of writing the piece and its intention.
Is the essay written to inform, entertain, educate, raise an issue for debate, and so on? Don’t parrot or repeat what the writer wrote in his paper. And write a paragraph or a few sentences as succinctly as you can.
Analyze means to break down the abstract ideas presented into manageable bits.
What are the main points of the composition? How was it structured? Did the view expressed by the author allow you, as the reader, to understand?
In the example given above, it’s easy to analyze the event as revealed by the chain of events. How do you examine the situation?
The following steps are helpful in the analysis of information:
- Ask yourself what your objective is in writing the critique paper. Come up with a guidepost in examining it. Are you looking at it with some goal or purpose in mind? Say you want to find out how thieves carry out bank robberies. Perhaps you can categorize those robberies as either planned or unplanned.
- Find out the source, or basis, of the information that you need. Will you use the paper as your source of data, or do you have corroborating evidence?
- Remove unnecessary information from your data source. Your decision to do so depends on your objective. If there is irrelevant data, remove it from your critique.
We can use an analogy here to clearly explain the analysis portion.
If you want to split a log, what would you do? Do you use an ax, a chainsaw, or perhaps a knife? The last one is out of the question. It’s inappropriate.
Thus, it would be best if you defined the tools of your analysis. Tools facilitate understanding and allow you to make an incisive analysis.
Now, you are ready to interpret the article, book, or any composition once the requisites of analysis are in place.
Visualize the event in your mind and interpret the behavior of actors in the bank robbery incident. You have several actors in that bank heist: the robber, the police, and the witnesses of the crime.
While reading the story, it might have occurred to you that the robber is inexperienced. We can see some discrepancies in his actions.
Imagine, his mode of escape is a bicycle. What got into him? Maybe he did not plan the robbery at all. Besides, there was no mention that the robber used a gun in the heist.
That fact confirms the first observation that he was not ready at all. Escaping the scene of the crime using a bicycle with nothing to defend himself once pursued? He’s insane. Unimaginable. He’s better off sleeping at home and waiting for food to land on his lap if food will come at all.
If we examine the police’s response, they were relatively quick. Right after the robber escaped the crime scene, they appeared to remedy the situation. The robber did not put up a fight.
What? With bare knuckles? It makes little sense.
If we look at the witnesses’ behavior, we can discern that perhaps they willingly informed the police of the bank robber’s details. They were not afraid. And that’s because the robber appears to be unarmed. But there was no specific mention of it.
Narrate the importance of each of the different sections or paragraphs. How does the write-up contribute to the overall picture of the issue or problem being studied?
Assess or Evaluate
Finally, judge whether the article was a worthwhile account after all. Did it meet expectations? Was it able to convey the information most efficiently? Or are there loopholes or flaws that should have been mentioned?
Format of Presenting the Critique Paper
The logical format in writing a critique paper comprises at least three sections: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. This approach is systematic and achieves a good flow that readers can follow.
Include the title and name of the author in your introduction. Make a general description of the topic being discussed, including the author’s assumptions, inferences, or contentions. Find out the thesis or central argument , which will be the basis of your discussion.
The robbery example appears to be inappropriate to demonstrate this section, as it is so simple. So we level up to a scientific article.
In any scientific article, there is always a thesis that guides the write-up. A thesis is a statement that expresses what the author believes in and tries to test in his study. The investigation or research converges (ideally) to this central theme as the author’s argument.
You can find the thesis in the paper’s hypothesis section. That’s because a hypothesis is a tentative thesis. Hypo means “below or under,” meaning it is the author’s tentative explanation of whatever phenomenon he tackles.
If you need more information about this, please refer to my previous post titled “ How to Write a Thesis .”
How is the introduction of a critique paper structured? It follows the general guidelines of writing from a broad perspective to more specific concerns or details. See how it’s written here: Writing a Thesis Introduction: from General to Specific .
You may include the process you adopted in writing the critique paper in this section.
The body of the paper includes details about the article being examined. It is here where you place all those musings of yours after applying the analytical tools .
This section is similar to the results and discussion portion of a scientific paper. It describes the outcome of your analysis and interpretation.
In explaining or expressing your argument, substantiate it by citing references to make it believable. Make sure that those references are relevant as well as timely. Don’t cite references that are so far out in the past. These, perhaps, would not amount to a better understanding of the topic at hand. Find one that will help you understand the situation.
Besides, who wants to adopt the perspective of an author who has not even got hold of a mobile phone if your paper is about using mobile phones to facilitate learning during the pandemic caused by COVID-19 ? Find a more recent one that will help you understand the situation.
Objectively examine the major points presented by the author by giving details about the work. How does the author present or express the idea or concept? Is he (or she) convincing the way he/she presents his/her paper’s thesis?
Well, I don’t want to be gender-biased, but I find the “he/she” term somewhat queer. I’ll get back to the “he” again, to represent both sexes.
I mention the gender issue because the literature says that there is a difference in how a person sees things based on gender. For example, Ragins & Sundstrom (1989) observed that it would be more difficult for women to obtain power in the organization than men. And there’s a paper on gender and emotions by Shields et al. (2006) , although I wouldn’t know the outcome of that study as it is behind a paywall. My point is just that there is a difference in perspective between men and women. Alright.
Therefore, always find evidence to support your position. Explain why you agree or disagree with the author. Point out the discrepancies or strengths of the paper.
Well, everything has an end. Write a critique paper that incorporates the key takeaways of the document examined. End the critique with an overall interpretation of the article, whatever that is.
Why do you think is the paper relevant in the course’s context that you are taking? How does it contribute to say, the study of human behavior (in reference to the bank robbery)? Are there areas that need to be considered by future researchers, investigators, or scientists? That will be the knowledge gap that the next generation of researchers will have to look into.
If you have read up to this point, then thank you for reading my musings. I hope that helped you clarify the steps in writing a critique paper. A well-written critique paper depends on your writing style.
Notice that my writing style changes based on the topic that I discuss. Hence, if your professor assigns you a serious, rigorous, incisive, and detailed analysis of a scientific article, then that is the way to go. Adopt a formal mode in your writing.
Final Tip : Find a paper that is easy for you to understand. In that way, you can clearly express your thoughts. Write a critique paper that rocks!
Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological bulletin , 105 (1), 51.
Shields, S. A., Garner, D. N., Di Leone, B., & Hadley, A. M. (2006). Gender and emotion. In Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 63-83). Springer, Boston, MA.
© 2020 November 20 P. A. Regoniel
Paraphrasing passages in research writing: how is it done, method and methodology: the difference, why publish research findings, about the author, patrick a. regoniel, phd.
Dr. Regoniel is a multipotentialite whose skills, knowledge, and interests span many areas of life.
Thanks for sharing tips on how to write critique papers. This article is very informative and easy to understand.
Welcome. Thank you for your appreciation.
This is extremely helpful. Thank you very much!
Thank you..for your idea ..it was indeed helpful
Glad it helped you Preezy.
Leave a Reply Cancel Reply
- Utility Menu
- Questions about Expos?
- Writing Support for Instructors
One of the most common questions we receive at the Writing Center is “what am I supposed to do in my conclusion?” This is a difficult question to answer because there’s no one right answer to what belongs in a conclusion. How you conclude your paper will depend on where you started—and where you traveled. It will also depend on the conventions and expectations of the discipline in which you are writing. For example, while the conclusion to a STEM paper could focus on questions for further study, the conclusion of a literature paper could include a quotation from your central text that can now be understood differently in light of what has been discussed in the paper. You should consult your instructor about expectations for conclusions in a particular discipline.
With that in mind, here are some general guidelines you might find helpful to use as you think about your conclusion.
Begin with the “what”
In a short paper—even a research paper—you don’t need to provide an exhaustive summary as part of your conclusion. But you do need to make some kind of transition between your final body paragraph and your concluding paragraph. This may come in the form of a few sentences of summary. Or it may come in the form of a sentence that brings your readers back to your thesis or main idea and reminds your readers where you began and how far you have traveled.
So, for example, in a paper about the relationship between ADHD and rejection sensitivity, Vanessa Roser begins by introducing readers to the fact that researchers have studied the relationship between the two conditions and then provides her explanation of that relationship. Here’s her thesis: “While socialization may indeed be an important factor in RS, I argue that individuals with ADHD may also possess a neurological predisposition to RS that is exacerbated by the differing executive and emotional regulation characteristic of ADHD.”
In her final paragraph, Roser reminds us of where she started by echoing her thesis: “This literature demonstrates that, as with many other conditions, ADHD and RS share a delicately intertwined pattern of neurological similarities that is rooted in the innate biology of an individual’s mind, a connection that cannot be explained in full by the behavioral mediation hypothesis.”
Highlight the “so what”
At the beginning of your paper, you explain to your readers what’s at stake—why they should care about the argument you’re making. In your conclusion, you can bring readers back to those stakes by reminding them why your argument is important in the first place. You can also draft a few sentences that put those stakes into a new or broader context.
In the conclusion to her paper about ADHD and RS, Roser echoes the stakes she established in her introduction—that research into connections between ADHD and RS has led to contradictory results, raising questions about the “behavioral mediation hypothesis.”
She writes, “as with many other conditions, ADHD and RS share a delicately intertwined pattern of neurological similarities that is rooted in the innate biology of an individual’s mind, a connection that cannot be explained in full by the behavioral mediation hypothesis.”
Leave your readers with the “now what”
After the “what” and the “so what,” you should leave your reader with some final thoughts. If you have written a strong introduction, your readers will know why you have been arguing what you have been arguing—and why they should care. And if you’ve made a good case for your thesis, then your readers should be in a position to see things in a new way, understand new questions, or be ready for something that they weren’t ready for before they read your paper.
In her conclusion, Roser offers two “now what” statements. First, she explains that it is important to recognize that the flawed behavioral mediation hypothesis “seems to place a degree of fault on the individual. It implies that individuals with ADHD must have elicited such frequent or intense rejection by virtue of their inadequate social skills, erasing the possibility that they may simply possess a natural sensitivity to emotion.” She then highlights the broader implications for treatment of people with ADHD, noting that recognizing the actual connection between rejection sensitivity and ADHD “has profound implications for understanding how individuals with ADHD might best be treated in educational settings, by counselors, family, peers, or even society as a whole.”
To find your own “now what” for your essay’s conclusion, try asking yourself these questions:
- What can my readers now understand, see in a new light, or grapple with that they would not have understood in the same way before reading my paper? Are we a step closer to understanding a larger phenomenon or to understanding why what was at stake is so important?
- What questions can I now raise that would not have made sense at the beginning of my paper? Questions for further research? Other ways that this topic could be approached?
- Are there other applications for my research? Could my questions be asked about different data in a different context? Could I use my methods to answer a different question?
- What action should be taken in light of this argument? What action do I predict will be taken or could lead to a solution?
- What larger context might my argument be a part of?
What to avoid in your conclusion
- a complete restatement of all that you have said in your paper.
- a substantial counterargument that you do not have space to refute; you should introduce counterarguments before your conclusion.
- an apology for what you have not said. If you need to explain the scope of your paper, you should do this sooner—but don’t apologize for what you have not discussed in your paper.
- fake transitions like “in conclusion” that are followed by sentences that aren’t actually conclusions. (“In conclusion, I have now demonstrated that my thesis is correct.”)
- Tips for Reading an Assignment Prompt
- Asking Analytical Questions
- What Do Introductions Across the Disciplines Have in Common?
- Anatomy of a Body Paragraph
- Tips for Organizing Your Essay
- Strategies for Essay Writing: Downloadable PDFs
- Brief Guides to Writing in the Disciplines
- Schedule an Appointment
- English Grammar and Language Tutor
- Harvard Guide to Using Sources
- Departmental Writing Fellows
- Writing Advice: The Harvard Writing Tutor Blog
Writing a critique involves more than pointing out mistakes. It involves conducting a systematic analysis of a scholarly article or book and then writing a fair and reasonable description of its strengths and weaknesses. Several scholarly journals have published guides for critiquing other people’s work in their academic area. Search for a “manuscript reviewer guide” in your own discipline to guide your analysis of the content. Use this handout as an orientation to the audience and purpose of different types of critiques and to the linguistic strategies appropriate to all of them.
Types of critique
Article or book review assignment in an academic class.
Text: Article or book that has already been published Audience: Professors Purpose:
- to demonstrate your skills for close reading and analysis
- to show that you understand key concepts in your field
- to learn how to review a manuscript for your future professional work
Published book review
Text: Book that has already been published Audience: Disciplinary colleagues Purpose:
- to describe the book’s contents
- to summarize the book’s strengths and weaknesses
- to provide a reliable recommendation to read (or not read) the book
Text: Manuscript that has been submitted but has not been published yet Audience: Journal editor and manuscript authors Purpose:
- to provide the editor with an evaluation of the manuscript
- to recommend to the editor that the article be published, revised, or rejected
- to provide the authors with constructive feedback and reasonable suggestions for revision
Language strategies for critiquing
For each type of critique, it’s important to state your praise, criticism, and suggestions politely, but with the appropriate level of strength. The following language structures should help you achieve this challenging task.
Offering Praise and Criticism
A strategy called “hedging” will help you express praise or criticism with varying levels of strength. It will also help you express varying levels of certainty in your own assertions. Grammatical structures used for hedging include:
Modal verbs Using modal verbs (could, can, may, might, etc.) allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:
This text is inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field. This text may be inappropriate for graduate students who are new to the field.
Qualifying adjectives and adverbs Using qualifying adjectives and adverbs (possible, likely, possibly, somewhat, etc.) allows you to introduce a level of probability into your comments. Compare:
Readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will find the theoretical model difficult to understand. Some readers will probably find the theoretical model somewhat difficult to understand completely.
Note: You can see from the last example that too many qualifiers makes the idea sound undesirably weak.
Tentative verbs Using tentative verbs (seems, indicates, suggests, etc.) also allows you to soften an absolute statement. Compare:
This omission shows that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission indicates that the authors are not aware of the current literature. This omission seems to suggest that the authors are not aware of the current literature.
Whether you are critiquing a published or unpublished text, you are expected to point out problems and suggest solutions. If you are critiquing an unpublished manuscript, the author can use your suggestions to revise. Your suggestions have the potential to become real actions. If you are critiquing a published text, the author cannot revise, so your suggestions are purely hypothetical. These two situations require slightly different grammar.
Unpublished manuscripts: “would be X if they did Y” Reviewers commonly point out weakness by pointing toward improvement. For instance, if the problem is “unclear methodology,” reviewers may write that “the methodology would be more clear if …” plus a suggestion. If the author can use the suggestions to revise, the grammar is “X would be better if the authors did Y” (would be + simple past suggestion).
The tables would be clearer if the authors highlighted the key results. The discussion would be more persuasive if the authors accounted for the discrepancies in the data.
Published manuscripts: “would have been X if they had done Y” If the authors cannot revise based on your suggestions, use the past unreal conditional form “X would have been better if the authors had done Y” (would have been + past perfect suggestion).
The tables would have been clearer if the authors had highlighted key results. The discussion would have been more persuasive if the authors had accounted for discrepancies in the data.
Note: For more information on conditional structures, see our Conditionals handout .
Make a Gift
How to Write an Article Critique without Stress (A Comprehensive Guide)
You are either in, or you are among those wondering what is a critique and how we write one. In a bit, you will be over this, and your transition to the club of those that understand writing academic critiques will be fast and seamless.
Life in college is forever full of academic writing tasks. If you are not handling a discussion post, then you could be out with friends but wondering how to write a critique on a scientific journal paper. Mostly, students find it hard to wrap their heads around writing a top-grade article critique.
In this wonderful blog post, we take you through the simple steps on how to write an article critique. We will cover how to begin critiquing a paper, the guidelines for crafting the body of an article critique, and how to conclude the critique paper.
We are doing this because we have had clients seeking our write my article critique for me, services. So, we felt we should help you learn how to critique an article with ease.
But before we go far, let us define an article critique.
What is an Article Critique?
By definition, an article critique, otherwise called a response paper, refers to a type of formal writing where the author evaluates a journal article, scientific content, or literary work. The major goal of an article critique is to assess and report whether the author has achieved the intended purpose of the article.
An article critique is written after a critical reading of a piece of research and entails the identification and evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the article in question.
If you are wondering how a research summary is different from an article critique, here is a distinguishing factor. While a summary of a research article only requires the author to share the major ideas in the article, a critique entails a summary, the central claims in the article, and the general approach in an evaluated and analyzed manner. The latter involves critical reading and reference to other sources while the former does not.
So, in short, article critiques present the author's main points, how the arguments shape up, and the strengths and weaknesses in the arguments.
Proven Steps on How to Write an Article Critique
Right off the bat, an article critique should be an objective analysis of a literary or scientific journal. Mostly, article critiques are written by students pursuing English, Literature, Psychology, History, Medicine and Health, Nursing, sociology, Social Work, Management, and any other field where the curriculum dictates so.
When writing an article critique essay, you should stick to academic writing conventions. This is to means that you can either format the critique in APA or MLA. Besides, your essay should be cogent, clear, critical, and concise. A top-grade critique essay is one that can give a reader deep insights into what an article entails without them reading the entire article.
We must say that albeit being a simple process, we have had students ask us, what is a research article critique? or how can I write an article critique in MLA/APA? we are very much aware of the tactics professors employ when assigning papers. Mostly, the instructions precede a light introduction with the assumption that you will research and write. Even with research, students still find writing an article critique a daunting task and a challenge that leaves them stressed. Not anymore, with the elaborate article critique definition above, let's drag our minds through the specific steps to follow when writing a great article critique.
First Step: Actively Read the Article to be critiqued
We insist that reading the article you are to critique comes first before research. Journal articles are lengthy, loaded with information, and structurally arranged. Therefore, reading a peer-reviewed journal should not be tough. However, reading closely means reading between the lines and making points as well as researching.
Majorly, you read through the article in three steps. The first reading is to familiarize yourself with the work before critiquing the research article. The second step is to have a close reading to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and parts of the article. Finally, you also have to read as you write the critique.
When reading, you should be keen on facts about the article. You should be able to spot the thesis of the author in the article you are to critique. Besides, it would help if you recognized the arguments and how they are structured. Luckily, you can use the different coloration features in most of PDF readers. Alternatively, a note-taking app can come in handy. However, if you are the old Billy, you will need a notebook and a marker as you read.
As you read through the paper, identify the different parts of the research journal such as:
- Purpose statement
- Research problems/aims of the research/goals of the research
- Hypothesis/research questions
- Research Methodology
- Research participants (sampling procedure, number of sample, inclusion and exclusion factors, etc.)
- Variable (independent and dependent variables)
- Major findings
- Methods of analysis and rationale
- Limitations of the research
- Strengths of the research article
As an article, critique is a complex academic paper, analyze the text with advanced understanding. Never forget any idea that should be included in the write-up.
Second Step: Preliminary Outline of the Critique
So, like any other type of essay, great scientific research or literary critique begins with a great outline . The notes should guide your drafting of the outline. We refer to this as a preliminary outline since you will depend on it the entire process of the critique. The outline should be the skeleton of your approach to the critique. We will cover more aspects of an article critique in the format section.
Third Step: What is the Author's Thesis (Main Argument)?
Whenever a professor is marking your article critique, they first want to see if you have identified the author's main argument. It helps distinguish if you have delineated the critique from a research summary. To identify the main message in an article, you sometimes must research. You should identify whether the message is clear, logical, and identifiable. Mostly, by just reading the abstract, you can be clear on what the author is trying to achieve. If the abstract is not clear on the main argument, sink into the introduction and conclusion. Evaluate the practicality of the message and critically assess whether the author has maintained consistency in presenting it. As you identify the message, evaluate if there is any bias that might affect the entire research goal.
Fourth Step: Critique the parts of the Scientific Journal/ Research Article
In the body of your article critique, you need to focus on:
Research methods : evaluate whether a good research method was chosen given the findings and limitations. Besides, also check whether the methods are consistent with similar research journals. Check the data collection instruments and state their strengths as well as weaknesses. It is also at this point that you evaluate the data analysis method and its suitability. Sometimes, you will need to evaluate the research philosophy that the research adopted.
Participants : ask yourself if the participants were representative of the target population. Also, evaluate the consistency and relevance of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Still, focus on how the participants were divided to enable the progress of the research process.
Findings : Summarize the findings of the research in a simplified version. Avoid quoting the numbers, if possible. However, some professors prefer to include the findings with complex numbers.
Conclusion: evaluate the conclusion made by the researcher (s). Mostly, the conclusion should be critiqued using similar articles with the same purpose or scope. For instance, if an article is about the link between employee motivation and performance, find articles reporting on similar research and evaluate the strength of the conclusion.
Finally, evaluate the overall strength and weaknesses of the article. The weaknesses are mostly present in the limitations of the articles, which are sometimes stated by the author.
So, a good research article critique should follow the article critique template and sample provided.
Fifth Step: Writing the Article Critique like a Pro
By this time, you have notes, a loaded essay outline , and a clear mind. It is about time you put rubber to the road. At this stage, your outline should guide your writing process. So, first, you will include the full citation of the article you are to critique either in MLA, APA, or Harvard.
- The introduction : Your introduction paragraph must feature a thesis statement of the research critique. If you are wondering how to write a thesis statement for an article critique, you should not. Just like normal essays, an article critiques thesis entails your overall response to the main argument in the article, .it can also be a suggestion of further considerations that would make the article great.
- The Body of your Article Critique : The body of your article critique essay should talk about the strengths and weaknesses presented in the article you are critiquing. Each of the body paragraphs must have a topic sentence, facts, arguments, and a closing sentence. When transitioning to the next paragraphs, use correct transition words. Use necessary citations in the body. There are many visual guides on how to write the body of a critique
- Conclusion of the Critique : This should be a summary of your argument and a statement of the potential implications. Recap your main points in your APA or MLA article critique of a scientific journal. Explain to the reader why the article was relevant, its weaknesses, its strengths, and the implications given the main message. You can always suggest an improvement area for the authors at this stage.
Components of a Great Article Critique Essay
Even though we have gone through how to write a critique essay for an article, either a scientific journal or a professional article, we must look at what makes an article critique tick. Here are some qualities of a great article critique:
- Includes the full bibliographic information of the article being critiqued after the heading. The bibliographic information should be in APA , MLA, Chicago, or Harvard formatting.
- It does not just summarize the contents of an article. Instead, it has a critical analysis of the contents of the article based on readings from other sources.
- Presents unique points in the introduction, body, and conclusion. Your critique should be cogent, concise, and candid.
- It is written in the proper tense. Mostly, critiques can be written in the past or present tense. That depends on your approach and the rubric.
- Never uses the first person. It is not a matter of giving your opinion like in a reflection or reaction essay. Instead, you should use the third-person perspective and ensure you cite externally used sources .
- One that has every claim backed up with proper evidence. Avoid plagiarism when writing an article critique.
- Identifies the main idea of the article, clarifies the background, and mentions the place of the article in practice given the purpose.
- Devoid of grammatical mistakes, errors, and omissions. Always strive to maintain a good word count while factoring in everything. The standard word count of an article critique is not set, but most are 1000 words plus.
Writing a top-grade critique of an article is tasking. Professors rank writing an article critique as one of the toughest academic writing tasks for students. It is also important at the same time as it hones your writing, creativity, and reasoning skills. Well, you might need help, even after reading the entire article.
Related: Psychology research paper topics.
If that is the case, we are good at helping students write great article critiques. If you are time strained and lack the motivation to write an article critique, our experts can help. Just say critique my paper/ write my article critique essay by ordering an article critique essay and leaving the rest to us. You do not need a critique example to learn how to write one. You can let us write your sample from scratch. Yes! We write custom article critique essays.
If you are already done with writing an article critique and would wish to have someone edit it, you can as well avail of our essay editing services. You do not have to go to social platforms and post can someone help me write my article critique or who can write my article critique
Our urgent essay writing service is well-positioned to handle your request. So, if you need a research critique paper, place an order with us and let our academic nerds help you!
IOE Writing Centre
- Writing a Critical Review
Writing a Critique
A critique (or critical review) is not to be mistaken for a literature review. A 'critical review', or 'critique', is a complete type of text (or genre), discussing one particular article or book in detail. In some instances, you may be asked to write a critique of two or three articles (e.g. a comparative critical review). In contrast, a 'literature review', which also needs to be 'critical', is a part of a larger type of text, such as a chapter of your dissertation.
Most importantly: Read your article / book as many times as possible, as this will make the critical review much easier.
1. Read and take notes 2. Organising your writing 3. Summary 4. Evaluation 5. Linguistic features of a critical review 6. Summary language 7. Evaluation language 8. Conclusion language 9. Example extracts from a critical review 10. Further resources
Read and Take Notes
To improve your reading confidence and efficiency, visit our pages on reading.
Further reading: Read Confidently
After you are familiar with the text, make notes on some of the following questions. Choose the questions which seem suitable:
- What kind of article is it (for example does it present data or does it present purely theoretical arguments)?
- What is the main area under discussion?
- What are the main findings?
- What are the stated limitations?
- Where does the author's data and evidence come from? Are they appropriate / sufficient?
- What are the main issues raised by the author?
- What questions are raised?
- How well are these questions addressed?
- What are the major points/interpretations made by the author in terms of the issues raised?
- Is the text balanced? Is it fair / biased?
- Does the author contradict herself?
- How does all this relate to other literature on this topic?
- How does all this relate to your own experience, ideas and views?
- What else has this author written? Do these build / complement this text?
- (Optional) Has anyone else reviewed this article? What did they say? Do I agree with them?
^ Back to top
Organising your writing
You first need to summarise the text that you have read. One reason to summarise the text is that the reader may not have read the text. In your summary, you will
- focus on points within the article that you think are interesting
- summarise the author(s) main ideas or argument
- explain how these ideas / argument have been constructed. (For example, is the author basing her arguments on data that they have collected? Are the main ideas / argument purely theoretical?)
In your summary you might answer the following questions: Why is this topic important? Where can this text be located? For example, does it address policy studies? What other prominent authors also write about this?
Evaluation is the most important part in a critical review.
Use the literature to support your views. You may also use your knowledge of conducting research, and your own experience. Evaluation can be explicit or implicit.
Explicit evaluation involves stating directly (explicitly) how you intend to evaluate the text. e.g. "I will review this article by focusing on the following questions. First, I will examine the extent to which the authors contribute to current thought on Second Language Acquisition (SLA) pedagogy. After that, I will analyse whether the authors' propositions are feasible within overseas SLA classrooms."
Implicit evaluation is less direct. The following section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review contains language that evaluates the text. A difficult part of evaluation of a published text (and a professional author) is how to do this as a student. There is nothing wrong with making your position as a student explicit and incorporating it into your evaluation. Examples of how you might do this can be found in the section on Linguistic Features of Writing a Critical Review. You need to remember to locate and analyse the author's argument when you are writing your critical review. For example, you need to locate the authors' view of classroom pedagogy as presented in the book / article and not present a critique of views of classroom pedagogy in general.
Linguistic features of a critical review
The following examples come from published critical reviews. Some of them have been adapted for student use.
- This article / book is divided into two / three parts. First...
- While the title might suggest...
- The tone appears to be...
- Title is the first / second volume in the series Title, edited by...The books / articles in this series address...
- The second / third claim is based on...
- The author challenges the notion that...
- The author tries to find a more middle ground / make more modest claims...
- The article / book begins with a short historical overview of...
- Numerous authors have recently suggested that...(see Author, Year; Author, Year). Author would also be once such author. With his / her argument that...
- To refer to title as a...is not to say that it is...
- This book / article is aimed at... This intended readership...
- The author's book / article examines the...To do this, the author first...
- The author develops / suggests a theoretical / pedagogical model to…
- This book / article positions itself firmly within the field of...
- The author in a series of subtle arguments, indicates that he / she...
- The argument is therefore...
- The author asks "..."
- With a purely critical / postmodern take on...
- Topic, as the author points out, can be viewed as...
- In this recent contribution to the field of...this British author...
- As a leading author in the field of...
- This book / article nicely contributes to the field of...and complements other work by this author...
- The second / third part of...provides / questions / asks the reader...
- Title is intended to encourage students / researchers to...
- The approach taken by the author provides the opportunity to examine...in a qualitative / quantitative research framework that nicely complements...
- The author notes / claims that state support / a focus on pedagogy / the adoption of...remains vital if...
- According to Author (Year) teaching towards examinations is not as effective as it is in other areas of the curriculum. This is because, as Author (Year) claims that examinations have undue status within the curriculum.
- According to Author (Year)…is not as effective in some areas of the curriculum / syllabus as others. Therefore the author believes that this is a reason for some school's…
- This argument is not entirely convincing, as...furthermore it commodifies / rationalises the...
- Over the last five / ten years the view of...has increasingly been viewed as 'complicated' (see Author, Year; Author, Year).
- However, through trying to integrate...with...the author...
- There are difficulties with such a position.
- Inevitably, several crucial questions are left unanswered / glossed over by this insightful / timely / interesting / stimulating book / article. Why should...
- It might have been more relevant for the author to have written this book / article as...
- This article / book is not without disappointment from those who would view...as...
- This chosen framework enlightens / clouds...
- This analysis intends to be...but falls a little short as...
- The authors rightly conclude that if...
- A detailed, well-written and rigorous account of...
- As a Korean student I feel that this article / book very clearly illustrates...
- The beginning of...provides an informative overview into...
- The tables / figures do little to help / greatly help the reader...
- The reaction by scholars who take a...approach might not be so favourable (e.g. Author, Year).
- This explanation has a few weaknesses that other researchers have pointed out (see Author, Year; Author, Year). The first is...
- On the other hand, the author wisely suggests / proposes that...By combining these two dimensions...
- The author's brief introduction to...may leave the intended reader confused as it fails to properly...
- Despite my inability to...I was greatly interested in...
- Even where this reader / I disagree(s), the author's effort to...
- The author thus combines...with...to argue...which seems quite improbable for a number of reasons. First...
- Perhaps this aversion to...would explain the author's reluctance to...
- As a second language student from ...I find it slightly ironic that such an anglo-centric view is...
- The reader is rewarded with...
- Less convincing is the broad-sweeping generalisation that...
- There is no denying the author's subject knowledge nor his / her...
- The author's prose is dense and littered with unnecessary jargon...
- The author's critique of...might seem harsh but is well supported within the literature (see Author, Year; Author, Year; Author, Year). Aligning herself with the author, Author (Year) states that...
- As it stands, the central focus of Title is well / poorly supported by its empirical findings...
- Given the hesitation to generalise to...the limitation of...does not seem problematic...
- For instance, the term...is never properly defined and the reader left to guess as to whether...
- Furthermore, to label...as...inadvertently misguides...
- In addition, this research proves to be timely / especially significant to... as recent government policy / proposals has / have been enacted to...
- On this well researched / documented basis the author emphasises / proposes that...
- Nonetheless, other research / scholarship / data tend to counter / contradict this possible trend / assumption...(see Author, Year; Author, Year).
- Without entering into detail of the..., it should be stated that Title should be read by...others will see little value in...
- As experimental conditions were not used in the study the word 'significant' misleads the reader.
- The article / book becomes repetitious in its assertion that...
- The thread of the author's argument becomes lost in an overuse of empirical data...
- Almost every argument presented in the final section is largely derivative, providing little to say about...
- She / he does not seem to take into consideration; however, that there are fundamental differences in the conditions of…
- As Author (Year) points out, however, it seems to be necessary to look at…
- This suggest that having low…does not necessarily indicate that…is ineffective.
- Therefore, the suggestion made by Author (Year)…is difficult to support.
- When considering all the data presented…it is not clear that the low scores of some students, indeed, reflects…
- Overall this article / book is an analytical look at...which within the field of...is often overlooked.
- Despite its problems, Title offers valuable theoretical insights / interesting examples / a contribution to pedagogy and a starting point for students / researchers of...with an interest in...
- This detailed and rigorously argued...
- This first / second volume / book / article by...with an interest in...is highly informative...
Example extracts from a critical review
If you have been told your writing is not critical enough, it probably means that your writing treats the knowledge claims as if they are true, well supported, and applicable in the context you are writing about. This may not always be the case.
In these two examples, the extracts refer to the same section of text. In each example, the section that refers to a source has been highlighted in bold. The note below the example then explains how the writer has used the source material.
There is a strong positive effect on students, both educationally and emotionally, when the instructors try to learn to say students' names without making pronunciation errors (Kiang, 2004).
Use of source material in example a:
This is a simple paraphrase with no critical comment. It looks like the writer agrees with Kiang. (This is not a good example for critical writing, as the writer has not made any critical comment).
Kiang (2004) gives various examples to support his claim that "the positive emotional and educational impact on students is clear" (p.210) when instructors try to pronounce students' names in the correct way. He quotes one student, Nguyet, as saying that he "felt surprised and happy" (p.211) when the tutor said his name clearly . The emotional effect claimed by Kiang is illustrated in quotes such as these, although the educational impact is supported more indirectly through the chapter. Overall, he provides more examples of students being negatively affected by incorrect pronunciation, and it is difficult to find examples within the text of a positive educational impact as such.
Use of source material in example b:
The writer describes Kiang's (2004) claim and the examples which he uses to try to support it. The writer then comments that the examples do not seem balanced and may not be enough to support the claims fully. This is a better example of writing which expresses criticality.
^Back to top
You may also be interested in our page on criticality, which covers criticality in general, and includes more critical reading questions.
Further reading: Read and Write Critically
We recommend that you do not search for other university guidelines on critical reviews. This is because the expectations may be different at other institutions. Ask your tutor for more guidance or examples if you have further questions.
IOE Writing Centre Online
Self-access resources from the Academic Writing Centre at the UCL Institute of Education.
Anonymous Suggestions Box
Information for Staff
Academic Writing Centre
Academic Writing Centre, UCL Institute of Education [email protected] Twitter: @AWC_IOE Skype: awc.ioe
- Social Anxiety Disorder
- Bipolar Disorder
- Kids Mental Health
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Best Family Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Healthy Relationships
- Relationships in 2023
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2023 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
How to Write a Methods Section for a Psychology Paper
Tips and Examples of an APA Methods Section
Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.
Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin
The methods section of an APA format psychology paper provides the methods and procedures used in a research study or experiment . This part of an APA paper is critical because it allows other researchers to see exactly how you conducted your research.
Method refers to the procedure that was used in a research study. It included a precise description of how the experiments were performed and why particular procedures were selected. While the APA technically refers to this section as the 'method section,' it is also often known as a 'methods section.'
The methods section ensures the experiment's reproducibility and the assessment of alternative methods that might produce different results. It also allows researchers to replicate the experiment and judge the study's validity.
This article discusses how to write a methods section for a psychology paper, including important elements to include and tips that can help.
What to Include in a Method Section
So what exactly do you need to include when writing your method section? You should provide detailed information on the following:
- Research design
- Participant behavior
The method section should provide enough information to allow other researchers to replicate your experiment or study.
Components of a Method Section
The method section should utilize subheadings to divide up different subsections. These subsections typically include participants, materials, design, and procedure.
In this part of the method section, you should describe the participants in your experiment, including who they were (and any unique features that set them apart from the general population), how many there were, and how they were selected. If you utilized random selection to choose your participants, it should be noted here.
For example: "We randomly selected 100 children from elementary schools near the University of Arizona."
At the very minimum, this part of your method section must convey:
- Basic demographic characteristics of your participants (such as sex, age, ethnicity, or religion)
- The population from which your participants were drawn
- Any restrictions on your pool of participants
- How many participants were assigned to each condition and how they were assigned to each group (i.e., randomly assignment , another selection method, etc.)
- Why participants took part in your research (i.e., the study was advertised at a college or hospital, they received some type of incentive, etc.)
Information about participants helps other researchers understand how your study was performed, how generalizable the result might be, and allows other researchers to replicate the experiment with other populations to see if they might obtain the same results.
In this part of the method section, you should describe the materials, measures, equipment, or stimuli used in the experiment. This may include:
- Testing instruments
- Technical equipment
- Any psychological assessments that were used
- Any special equipment that was used
For example: "Two stories from Sullivan et al.'s (1994) second-order false belief attribution tasks were used to assess children's understanding of second-order beliefs."
For standard equipment such as computers, televisions, and videos, you can simply name the device and not provide further explanation.
Specialized equipment should be given greater detail, especially if it is complex or created for a niche purpose. In some instances, such as if you created a special material or apparatus for your study, you might need to include an illustration of the item in the appendix of your paper.
In this part of your method section, describe the type of design used in the experiment. Specify the variables as well as the levels of these variables. Identify:
- The independent variables
- Dependent variables
- Control variables
- Any extraneous variables that might influence your results.
Also, explain whether your experiment uses a within-groups or between-groups design.
For example: "The experiment used a 3x2 between-subjects design. The independent variables were age and understanding of second-order beliefs."
The next part of your method section should detail the procedures used in your experiment. Your procedures should explain:
- What the participants did
- How data was collected
- The order in which steps occurred
For example: "An examiner interviewed children individually at their school in one session that lasted 20 minutes on average. The examiner explained to each child that he or she would be told two short stories and that some questions would be asked after each story. All sessions were videotaped so the data could later be coded."
Keep this subsection concise yet detailed. Explain what you did and how you did it, but do not overwhelm your readers with too much information.
Tips for How to Write a Methods Section
In addition to following the basic structure of an APA method section, there are also certain things you should remember when writing this section of your paper. Consider the following tips when writing this section:
- Use the past tense : Always write the method section in the past tense.
- Be descriptive : Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your experiment, but focus on brevity. Avoid unnecessary detail that is not relevant to the outcome of the experiment.
- Use an academic tone : Use formal language and avoid slang or colloquial expressions. Word choice is also important. Refer to the people in your experiment or study as "participants" rather than "subjects."
- Use APA format : Keep a style guide on hand as you write your method section. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is the official source for APA style.
- Make connections : Read through each section of your paper for agreement with other sections. If you mention procedures in the method section, these elements should be discussed in the results and discussion sections.
- Proofread : Check your paper for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.. typos, grammar problems, and spelling errors. Although a spell checker is a handy tool, there are some errors only you can catch.
After writing a draft of your method section, be sure to get a second opinion. You can often become too close to your work to see errors or lack of clarity. Take a rough draft of your method section to your university's writing lab for additional assistance.
A Word From Verywell
The method section is one of the most important components of your APA format paper. The goal of your paper should be to clearly detail what you did in your experiment. Provide enough detail that another researcher could replicate your study if they wanted.
Finally, if you are writing your paper for a class or for a specific publication, be sure to keep in mind any specific instructions provided by your instructor or by the journal editor. Your instructor may have certain requirements that you need to follow while writing your method section.
Frequently Asked Questions
While the subsections can vary, the three components that should be included are sections on the participants, the materials, and the procedures.
- Describe who the participants were in the study and how they were selected.
- Define and describe the materials that were used including any equipment, tests, or assessments
- Describe how the data was collected
To write your methods section in APA format, describe your participants, materials, study design, and procedures. Keep this section succinct, and always write in the past tense. The main heading of this section should be labeled "Method" and it should be centered, bolded, and capitalized. Each subheading within this section should be bolded, left-aligned and in title case.
The purpose of the methods section is to describe what you did in your experiment. It should be brief, but include enough detail that someone could replicate your experiment based on this information. Your methods section should detail what you did to answer your research question. Describe how the study was conducted, the study design that was used and why it was chosen, and how you collected the data and analyzed the results.
Erdemir F. How to write a materials and methods section of a scientific article ? Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):10-5. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.047
Kallet RH. How to write the methods section of a research paper . Respir Care . 2004;49(10):1229-32. PMID: 15447808.
American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.
American Psychological Association. APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards . Published 2020.
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
How to Write Critical Reviews
When you are asked to write a critical review of a book or article, you will need to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. In other words, you will be examining another person’s thoughts on a topic from your point of view.
Your stand must go beyond your “gut reaction” to the work and be based on your knowledge (readings, lecture, experience) of the topic as well as on factors such as criteria stated in your assignment or discussed by you and your instructor.
Make your stand clear at the beginning of your review, in your evaluations of specific parts, and in your concluding commentary.
Remember that your goal should be to make a few key points about the book or article, not to discuss everything the author writes.
Understanding the Assignment
To write a good critical review, you will have to engage in the mental processes of analyzing (taking apart) the work–deciding what its major components are and determining how these parts (i.e., paragraphs, sections, or chapters) contribute to the work as a whole.
Analyzing the work will help you focus on how and why the author makes certain points and prevent you from merely summarizing what the author says. Assuming the role of an analytical reader will also help you to determine whether or not the author fulfills the stated purpose of the book or article and enhances your understanding or knowledge of a particular topic.
Be sure to read your assignment thoroughly before you read the article or book. Your instructor may have included specific guidelines for you to follow. Keeping these guidelines in mind as you read the article or book can really help you write your paper!
Also, note where the work connects with what you’ve studied in the course. You can make the most efficient use of your reading and notetaking time if you are an active reader; that is, keep relevant questions in mind and jot down page numbers as well as your responses to ideas that appear to be significant as you read.
Please note: The length of your introduction and overview, the number of points you choose to review, and the length of your conclusion should be proportionate to the page limit stated in your assignment and should reflect the complexity of the material being reviewed as well as the expectations of your reader.
Write the introduction
Below are a few guidelines to help you write the introduction to your critical review.
Introduce your review appropriately
Begin your review with an introduction appropriate to your assignment.
If your assignment asks you to review only one book and not to use outside sources, your introduction will focus on identifying the author, the title, the main topic or issue presented in the book, and the author’s purpose in writing the book.
If your assignment asks you to review the book as it relates to issues or themes discussed in the course, or to review two or more books on the same topic, your introduction must also encompass those expectations.
For example, before you can review two books on a topic, you must explain to your reader in your introduction how they are related to one another.
Within this shared context (or under this “umbrella”) you can then review comparable aspects of both books, pointing out where the authors agree and differ.
In other words, the more complicated your assignment is, the more your introduction must accomplish.
Finally, the introduction to a book review is always the place for you to establish your position as the reviewer (your thesis about the author’s thesis).
As you write, consider the following questions:
- Is the book a memoir, a treatise, a collection of facts, an extended argument, etc.? Is the article a documentary, a write-up of primary research, a position paper, etc.?
- Who is the author? What does the preface or foreword tell you about the author’s purpose, background, and credentials? What is the author’s approach to the topic (as a journalist? a historian? a researcher?)?
- What is the main topic or problem addressed? How does the work relate to a discipline, to a profession, to a particular audience, or to other works on the topic?
- What is your critical evaluation of the work (your thesis)? Why have you taken that position? What criteria are you basing your position on?
Provide an overview
In your introduction, you will also want to provide an overview. An overview supplies your reader with certain general information not appropriate for including in the introduction but necessary to understanding the body of the review.
Generally, an overview describes your book’s division into chapters, sections, or points of discussion. An overview may also include background information about the topic, about your stand, or about the criteria you will use for evaluation.
The overview and the introduction work together to provide a comprehensive beginning for (a “springboard” into) your review.
- What are the author’s basic premises? What issues are raised, or what themes emerge? What situation (i.e., racism on college campuses) provides a basis for the author’s assertions?
- How informed is my reader? What background information is relevant to the entire book and should be placed here rather than in a body paragraph?
Write the body
The body is the center of your paper, where you draw out your main arguments. Below are some guidelines to help you write it.
Organize using a logical plan
Organize the body of your review according to a logical plan. Here are two options:
- First, summarize, in a series of paragraphs, those major points from the book that you plan to discuss; incorporating each major point into a topic sentence for a paragraph is an effective organizational strategy. Second, discuss and evaluate these points in a following group of paragraphs. (There are two dangers lurking in this pattern–you may allot too many paragraphs to summary and too few to evaluation, or you may re-summarize too many points from the book in your evaluation section.)
- Alternatively, you can summarize and evaluate the major points you have chosen from the book in a point-by-point schema. That means you will discuss and evaluate point one within the same paragraph (or in several if the point is significant and warrants extended discussion) before you summarize and evaluate point two, point three, etc., moving in a logical sequence from point to point to point. Here again, it is effective to use the topic sentence of each paragraph to identify the point from the book that you plan to summarize or evaluate.
Questions to keep in mind as you write
With either organizational pattern, consider the following questions:
- What are the author’s most important points? How do these relate to one another? (Make relationships clear by using transitions: “In contrast,” an equally strong argument,” “moreover,” “a final conclusion,” etc.).
- What types of evidence or information does the author present to support his or her points? Is this evidence convincing, controversial, factual, one-sided, etc.? (Consider the use of primary historical material, case studies, narratives, recent scientific findings, statistics.)
- Where does the author do a good job of conveying factual material as well as personal perspective? Where does the author fail to do so? If solutions to a problem are offered, are they believable, misguided, or promising?
- Which parts of the work (particular arguments, descriptions, chapters, etc.) are most effective and which parts are least effective? Why?
- Where (if at all) does the author convey personal prejudice, support illogical relationships, or present evidence out of its appropriate context?
Keep your opinions distinct and cite your sources
Remember, as you discuss the author’s major points, be sure to distinguish consistently between the author’s opinions and your own.
Keep the summary portions of your discussion concise, remembering that your task as a reviewer is to re-see the author’s work, not to re-tell it.
And, importantly, if you refer to ideas from other books and articles or from lecture and course materials, always document your sources, or else you might wander into the realm of plagiarism.
Include only that material which has relevance for your review and use direct quotations sparingly. The Writing Center has other handouts to help you paraphrase text and introduce quotations.
Write the conclusion
You will want to use the conclusion to state your overall critical evaluation.
You have already discussed the major points the author makes, examined how the author supports arguments, and evaluated the quality or effectiveness of specific aspects of the book or article.
Now you must make an evaluation of the work as a whole, determining such things as whether or not the author achieves the stated or implied purpose and if the work makes a significant contribution to an existing body of knowledge.
Consider the following questions:
- Is the work appropriately subjective or objective according to the author’s purpose?
- How well does the work maintain its stated or implied focus? Does the author present extraneous material? Does the author exclude or ignore relevant information?
- How well has the author achieved the overall purpose of the book or article? What contribution does the work make to an existing body of knowledge or to a specific group of readers? Can you justify the use of this work in a particular course?
- What is the most important final comment you wish to make about the book or article? Do you have any suggestions for the direction of future research in the area? What has reading this work done for you or demonstrated to you?
Academic and Professional Writing
This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.
A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis
Using Literary Quotations
Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts
Incorporating Interview Data
Planning and Writing a Grant Proposal: The Basics
Additional Resources for Grants and Proposal Writing
Job Materials and Application Essays
Writing Personal Statements for Ph.D. Programs
- Before you begin: useful tips for writing your essay
- Guided brainstorming exercises
- Get more help with your essay
- Frequently Asked Questions
Resume Writing Tips
CV Writing Tips
Proposals and Dissertations
Resources for Proposal Writers
Resources for Dissertators
Planning and Writing Research Papers
Quoting and Paraphrasing
Writing Annotated Bibliographies
Creating Poster Presentations
Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper
Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors
Reading for a Review
Writing a Review of Literature
Scientific Report Format
Sample Lab Assignment
Writing for the Web
Writing an Effective Blog Post
Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics
What’s an Article Critique and How to Write It
What is an article critique assignment.
An article critique, also known as a response paper, is a formal evaluation of a journal article or another type of literary or scientific content. Your main goal is to show whether or not the author provided reasonable arguments and facts for their main points.
How to Write an Article Critique
Although the concept is fairly simple, many students still end up wondering: “What is a research article critique?” After the initial explanation, the professor doesn’t provide many additional instructions. So you simply assume that you’ll need to read a research article and then discuss it from a critical point of view or you can use the help of professional writer from the best essay writing service . That assumption is correct. However, the article critique is a much more complex challenge than most students expect.
- Instead of simply summarizing the main points of the article, you must critique them. This is where most students make a mistake; they offer a mere summary of the research article they read. Journal articles already have summaries. Your professor doesn’t want to get that. They want your unique opinion and discussion.
- You should provide not only your impressions of the article, but evidence that backs them up as well.
- In addition to identifying the main idea of the article, you should also clarify its background and purpose.
- Most of all, you’ll focus on the issues this article raises, as well as the ones it avoids.
Now that we elaborated on that definition, let’s get to the main point: how to critique an article. We’ll give you specific steps to follow, so you’ll complete this paper with success.
Step 1: Active Reading
You cannot critique a research article before you read and understand it. These journal articles can be quite lengthy, and they often involve terms you don’t understand. That’s why simple reading won’t be enough. You’ll have to engage in active and close reading , accompanied with some research, so you can define and understand the terms that are new to you.
During this process, you will observe facts and details about the text. You will identify the main point of the author, as well as the arguments they used to support that point.
This means that you’ll definitely need a marker, as well as a note-taking app. If you prefer taking notes the old-fashion way, get a notebook and start writing as you read.
Make sure to identify these main aspects of the research as you read through the article:
- Research problem and research goal
- Research methods
- Participants in the research
- Main findings
You’ll probably need to read the article several times before you’re done with this stage. You’ll discover new layers with each reading, and new ideas on how to critique will come to your mind. Take notes of those ideas, too.
Speaking of notes, don’t make them brief. Maybe you think that a brief note expresses your entire idea, but it doesn’t. Remember: this is a complex type of academic paper. You’re analyzing an advanced text, so it’s easy to forget some of your ideas when the time to write comes. Yes; it will take more time for you to read and take notes of your observations. However, you’ll minimize the obstacles during the writing process if you’re willing to make this effort.
Step 2: Develop a Preliminary Outline
Now that you have thorough understanding of the article and you took plenty of notes, it’s time to organize them into a preliminary outline. Why is this a preliminary outline ? – Because you’re still not done with the process of critique. In this outline, you’ll just plan how you’ll discuss the main points of the article.
Step 3: Question the Author’s Main Points
This is the first thing the professor will wonder when they start reading your critique: “Did this student understand the difference between a summary and an analysis? The article critique is not a summary; it’s an analysis from a critical point of view. Although your main purpose is not persuasion, you still have to develop a convincing discussion.
To achieve that, you must wonder whether or not the writer’s overall message is logical. This goal will demand additional research. You hardly have the entire base of knowledge needed for analyzing a researcher’s work. Thus, you’ll have to search for similar examples and compare this article’s hypothesis with them.
You can check the logic of the message in an easy way: compare the introduction and the conclusion. Do the elements of these two sections match?
In addition to the main message and the logic of the article, you’ll question other aspects, too:
- The research methods
- The results
- The discussion
- The stylistic elements
Yes; even the stylistic elements are important. If the author’s style is incomprehensive, you may use that argument as an element of your critique.
When you’re questioning the main elements and points of the article, remember: you’re not obliged to write a negative critique. The critique can be positive as well. If you agree with all points, you’ll write a positive critique. If you don’t agree, you’ll write your remarks. If you’re somewhere in between (that’s the usual approach of article critiques), you’ll emphasize both the positive and negative elements of the article. In any case, you must use strong arguments to support your points.
Step 4: Identify Contradictions
Throughout the reading, maybe you identified some contradictions in the article. Researchers, whether intentionally or unintentionally, can be biased. Thus, they may ignore contrary evidence or even misinterpret it, so they will turn it to their advantage.
This bias can come from prejudices. An architect with traditional education, for example, has prejudices towards feng shui, and they will ignore some evidence that might prove the benefits of that method. A medical expert will have prejudices towards Chinese medicine. You get the point.
Note any biases, and you’ll find the contradictions. Whenever the author mentions another author’s work, check out that source. Yes; it will require more reading, but it will help you identify the weak points in the article, so you’ll be able to critique it.
If the author cited untrustworthy evidence, you may add that point in your critique.
Step 5: Write It!
You’ll have plenty of notes by this stage. Don’t worry; that’s a good thing. All you need to do is organize them in a clear outline, so you’ll know what logical progression to follow as you discuss the article. Once you’re ready, you may start with the writing process.
- Disclose Your Main Argument in the Introduction
It’s not that hard to start writing the introduction. You should provide the title of the article you’re critiquing, its author’s name, the journal where it was published, and the publication date. Then, you’ll make a statement about the focus of this research article. It has a thesis statement, right? Include it in the introduction.
Most types of academic papers contain a thesis statement in the introduction. In the article critique, the introduction should also outline your main argument. Disclose your main points of critique in this statement, so it will give the reader an idea of what they are about to read.
- Write the Body Paragraphs
Now, the time for a real critique starts. Each one of the body paragraphs should expand on a new point of the article. Since this is not a 5-paragraph essay (the article critique will be much longer!), you may use subheadings for these sections. If you’re writing a brief article critique, you don’t have to do that.
Each paragraph of the body should start with a topic sentence, which you’ll develop further in the paragraph. Make sure there’s a logical connection between these parts of the paper.
- Summarize Your Arguments
In the conclusion, you’ll summarize your critique and you’ll suggest its potential implications. You may recommend further research, which will shed new light on the issue and will improve the work of the writer you just critiqued.
Step 6: Revise!
Do not skip this step! Don’t even think about it. The article critique is a serious project, which should showcase your capacity of critical thinking and argumentation. If you fail to revise it, even the slightest flaw will ruin the impression for the reader.
During this process, pay attention to the citations. Did you reference all sources properly? Proofread the bibliography, too! If you don’t know how to format it, make sure to follow the rules of article critique APA formatting style.
This is not a simple project. In fact, the article critique may be one of the most complex academic writing challenges for students. However, it’s also very important. It teaches you how to use the work of another writer without being completely convinced in their point of view. It teaches you how to question and check their arguments.
You’re developing the skill of critical thinking, which is extremely important for your progress in any career. So pay attention to this assignment; the results are well worth the effort.
We can help you with:
- Research Paper
Why choose us
People talk about us
Believe it or not, but I'm fully satisfied with the essay you've written for me. I have got an excellent mark and I'm now convinced in the truth of your promises. Thanks!
Unbelievable. The writer followed all my instructions and created a brilliant essay, I would say. What I like most of all, no one suspects even that my essay wasn't written by me. Thanks.
How it works
Take the first step and invest in your future.
Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.
Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.
Find your Fit
UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.
Arts & Culture
Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.
Give Like a Star
Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.
UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.
- Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Registration Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance
How to Review a Journal Article
- Request Info Request info for.... Undergraduate/Graduate Online Study Away Continuing & Professional Education International Student Services General Inquiries
For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.
Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.
Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes, annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.
Questions to Consider
To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.
Evaluating Purpose and Argument
- How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
- How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
- How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
- How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
- How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?
Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information
- How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
- Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
- How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
- What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
- How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
- How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?
- How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
- How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
- Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?
- Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
- Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
- How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
- What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?
Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.
Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an annotated bibliography .
In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.
The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.
This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.
Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.
Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.
Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.
Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.
The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.
This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.
This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.
- EXPLORE Coupons Tech Help Pro Random Article About Us Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
- EDIT Edit this Article
- PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
- Browse Articles
- Learn Something New
- This Or That Game New
- Train Your Brain
- Explore More
- Support wikiHow
- About wikiHow
- H&M Coupons
- Hotwire Promo Codes
- StubHub Discount Codes
- Ashley Furniture Coupons
- Blue Nile Promo Codes
- NordVPN Coupons
- Samsung Promo Codes
- Chewy Promo Codes
- Ulta Coupons
- Vistaprint Promo Codes
- Shutterfly Promo Codes
- DoorDash Promo Codes
- Office Depot Coupons
- adidas Promo Codes
- Home Depot Coupons
- DSW Coupons
- Bed Bath and Beyond Coupons
- Lowe's Coupons
- Surfshark Coupons
- Nordstrom Coupons
- Walmart Promo Codes
- Dick's Sporting Goods Coupons
- Fanatics Coupons
- Edible Arrangements Coupons
- eBay Coupons
- Log in / Sign up
- Education and Communications
- English Grammar
- Writing Paragraphs
How to Write a Critique in Five Paragraphs
Last Updated: March 6, 2023 References Approved
This article was co-authored by Diane Stubbs . Diane Stubbs is a Secondary English Teacher with over 22 years of experience teaching all high school grade levels and AP courses. She specializes in secondary education, classroom management, and educational technology. Diane earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Delaware and a Master of Education from Wesley College. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. This article has 28 testimonials from our readers, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 962,344 times.
A critique is usually written in response to a creative work, such as a novel, a film, poetry, or a painting. However, critiques are also sometimes assigned for research articles and media items, such as news articles or features. A critique is slightly different than a traditional 5-paragraph theme, as it is usually focused on the overall effectiveness and usefulness of the work it is critiquing, rather than making a strictly analytical argument about it. Organizing your critique into 5 paragraphs can help you structure your thoughts.
Laying the Groundwork
- Does the creator clearly state her/his main point or goal? If not, why do you think that is?
- Who do you think is the creator’s intended audience? This can be crucial to determining the success of a work; for example, a movie intended for young children might work well for its intended audience but not for adult viewers.
- What reactions do you have when reading or viewing this work? Does it provoke emotional responses? Do you feel confused?
- What questions does the work make you think of? Does it suggest other avenues of exploration or observation to you?
- For example, if you're critiquing a research article about a new treatment for the flu, a little research about other flu treatments currently available could be helpful to you when situating the work in context.
- As another example, if you're writing about a movie, you might want to briefly discuss the director's other films, or other important movies in this particular genre (indie, action, drama, etc.).
- Your school or university library is usually a good place to start when conducting research, as their databases provide verified, expert sources. Google Scholar can also be a good source for research.
Writing the Introductory Paragraph
- For a work of fiction or a published work of journalism or research, this information is usually available in the publication itself, such as on the copyright page for a novel.
- For a film, you may wish to refer to a source such as IMDb to get the information you need. If you're critiquing a famous artwork, an encyclopedia of art would be a good place to find information on the creator, the title, and important dates (date of creation, date of exhibition, etc.).
- For example, if you’re assessing a research article in the sciences, a quick overview of its place in the academic discussion could be useful (e.g., “Professor X’s work on fruit flies is part of a long research tradition on Blah Blah Blah.”)
- If you are evaluating a painting, giving some brief information on where it was first displayed, for whom it was painted, etc., would be useful.
- If you are assessing a novel, it could be good to talk about what genre or literary tradition the novel is written within (e.g., fantasy, High Modernism, romance). You may also want to include details about the author’s biography that seem particularly relevant to your critique.
- For a media item, such as a news article, consider the social and/or political context of the media outlet the item came from (e.g., Fox News, BBC, etc.) and of the issue it is dealing with (e.g., immigration, education, entertainment).
- The authors of research articles will often state very clearly in the abstract and in the introduction to their work what they are investigating, often with sentences that say something like this: "In this article we provide a new framework for analyzing X and argue that it is superior to previous methods because of reason A and reason B."
- For creative works, you may not have an explicit statement from the author or creator about their purpose, but you can often infer one from the context the work occupies. For example, if you were examining the movie The Shining, you might argue that the filmmaker Stanley Kubrick's goal is to call attention to the poor treatment of Native Americans because of the strong Native American themes present in the movie. You could then present the reasons why you think that in the rest of the essay.
- For example, if you were writing about The Shining, you could summarize the main points this way: "Stanley Kubrick uses strong symbolism, such as the placement of the movie's hotel on an Indian burial ground, the naming of the hotel "Overlook," and the constant presence of Native American artwork and representation, to call viewers' attention to America's treatment of Native Americans in history."
- For a research article, you will probably want to focus your thesis on whether the research and discussion supported the authors' claims. You may also wish to critique the research methodology, if there are obvious flaws present.
- For creative works, consider what you believe the author or creator's goal was in making the work, and then present your assessment of whether or not they achieved that goal.
Writing the 3 Body Paragraphs
- If you have three clear points about your work, you can organize each paragraph by point. For example, if you are analyzing a painting, you might critique the painter’s use of color, light, and composition, devoting a paragraph to each topic.
- If you have more than three points about your work, you can organize each paragraph thematically. For example, if you are critiquing a movie and want to talk about its treatment of women, its screenwriting, its pacing, its use of color and framing, and its acting, you might think about the broader categories that these points fall into, such as “production” (pacing, color and framing, screenwriting), “social commentary” (treatment of women), and “performance” (acting).
- Alternatively, you could organize your critique by “strengths” and “weaknesses.” The aim of a critique is not merely to criticize, but to point out what the creator or author has done well and what s/he has not.
- For example, if you are critiquing a song, you could consider how the beat or tone of the music supports or detracts from the lyrics.
- For a research article or a media item, you may want to consider questions such as how the data was gathered in an experiment, or what method a journalist used to discover information.
- Does the author use primary sources (e.g., historical documents, interviews, etc.)? Secondary sources? Quantitative data? Qualitative data? Are these sources appropriate for the argument?
- Has evidence been presented fairly, without distortion or selectivity?
- Does the argument proceed logically from the evidence used?
- If the work is a creative work, consider whether it presents its ideas in an original or interesting way. You can also consider whether it engages with key concepts or ideas in popular culture or society.
- If the work is a research article, you can consider whether the work enhances your understanding of a particular theory or idea in its discipline. Research articles often include a section on “further research” where they discuss the contributions their research has made and what future contributions they hope to make.
Writing the Conclusion Paragraph and References
- Before you begin writing, take notes while you are watching or reading the subject of your critique. Keep to mind certain aspects such as how it made you feel. What was your first impression? With deeper examination, what is your overall opinion? How did you come to this opinion? Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
- While the 5-paragraph form can work very well to help you organize your ideas, some instructors do not allow this type of essay. Be sure that you understand the assignment. If you’re not sure whether a 5-paragraph format is acceptable to your teacher, ask! Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
- Avoid using first and second person pronouns such as, “you”, “your”, “I”, “my”, or “mine.” State your opinion objectively for a more credible approach. Thanks Helpful 39 Not Helpful 14
You Might Also Like
- ↑ https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/how-to-write-a-critique
- ↑ https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/writing-article-critique
- ↑ http://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/critique.jsp
- ↑ http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/specific-types-of-writing/book-review
- ↑ https://www.hunter.cuny.edu/rwc/handouts/the-writing-process-1/invention/Writing-a-Critique
- ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/esl/resources/writing-critiques/
About This Article
To write a 5-paragraph critique, provide the basic information about the work you're critiquing in the first paragraph, including the author, when it was published, and what its key themes are. Then, conclude this paragraph with a statement of your opinion of the work. Next, identify 3 central positive or negative issues in the work and write a paragraph about each one. For example, you could focus on the color, light, and composition of a painting. In the final paragraph, state your overall assessment of the work, and give reasons to back it up. For tips on how to take notes on the piece your critiquing, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No
- Send fan mail to authors
Reader Success Stories
Feb 7, 2017
Did this article help you?
Sep 30, 2017
Feb 11, 2017
Sep 23, 2017
Jul 28, 2016
- Do Not Sell or Share My Info
- Not Selling Info
Get all the best how-tos!
Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter
How to Critique a Research Paper
Published 25 August 2021
You might be asked by your teachers and professors in college to critique an article or research paper to reveal its authenticity through criticism. A research paper critique considers both negative and positive points of the research paper before giving any statement about the Research Paper. Students having no idea about how to critique a research paper can take the help of the following tips given for the research paper critique. My Research Topics experts give their guidance to critique a research paper to the students.
Useful tips and examples are cited below for the students to understand the process of critiquing a research paper with expertise. Make sure that you are not skipping these tips as professional research paper writers of My Research Topics have suggested these guiding tips to the students.
Looking For Custom Research Topics & Ideas
Read the entire research paper before start critiquing it.
If you have been assigned with writing a research paper critique make sure that you have finished the primary reading of the research paper. It is very important to read the research paper carefully till the end It will help the students to find out certain useful leads to a critique of a research paper. Also, research topics for the critique also become easy to find. You can also take the help to critique a research paper from the professional research paper helpers of the My Research Topics. So do not show a casual approach a write high-quality research paper on the deadline assigned to you.
Note down some important arguments that are discussed in the paper
While reading the research paper it is the responsibility of the students to note down important points of the research paper. These important points include the arguments that the writer of the research paper has risen through his writing the paper. It will help the students to start critiquing their research paperwork. Students can pin these points on the paper and then while finding the research leads these arguments could serve this purpose easily. Help from the certified and professional research paper helpers could be taken by the students. High qualities help in critiquing arguments of the research paper is given to the students and that is to all the time.
Read Also: Discourse Analysis Research Methodology
Do research on the authenticity of these arguments and resources used
The next step in the process of article critique is to check the authenticity of the arguments that are written by the writers of a research paper. This authenticity could be checked only through performing research on the resources used and how authentic they were. If research is done by using authentic resources and by applying a correct research methodology authenticity of the research paper could be checked. Help in checking the research paper’s authenticity to the students is given by Myresearchtopics .com experts to the students. So make sure that you are taking this help to check whether the given arguments of the research paper are authentic or not.
Write the validity of the solutions given for these arguments
The next step in writing the research paper article is to check the validity of the solutions that research paper writers have given to the arguments of the topic. These solutions must be practical in nature which could be applied to real life. There are many solutions that the research paper contains that are of no use when it comes to applying them on the real grounds. Such solutions must be disclosed by the critique while critiquing a research paper. Help to critique the research paper solutions is given by the My Research Topics Experts to the students.
So if you are assigned such a task take the help of experts for this task. There is no value in the solutions given for the troubles discussed related to the research paper topics if they are not useful in the real part of life. A research paper critique must keep this point in mind before giving an unbiased research paper critique to the professors. A high score could be obtained by following this philosophy.
Give your personal critical analysis at the end
When all the above tasks are completed by the students the final step is to give an overall personal criticism on the research paper. It is what the critique personally feels about the research paper. But it does not mean that anything could be said about the research paper as every statement has to be substantiated with valid reasons and examples. So this is the most difficult task that students do in their personal critical analysis while writing a research paper critique. Seek the help of the My Research Topics experts to complete research paper critique assignments on time with these experts and submit them before the deadline.
Read Also: Thematic Analysis for research
Conclude your article critique
Finally, conclude your research paper critiquing at the end by giving a research conclusion at the end. You can give the overall review of the entire critique of the research paper that you have written so far. Both negative and positive aspects of the research paper need to be discussed at this stage. Do not include new points at this part of the time. You have to show the success of your article critique at this point in time. You have the option to seek help from the My Research Topics Experts as well. High-quality help in writing research paper critiques is given to the students by these experts.
Stuck During Your Dissertation
Our top dissertation writing experts are waiting 24/7 to assist you with your university project,from critical literature reviews to a complete PhD dissertation.
Other Related Guides
Impact & role of technology on the environment – essay sample, why is it crucial for teachers to learn about human growth and development, dba vs phd – differences explained, masters vs phd – differences explained, part time phds – everything you need to know, what is an mphil.
- What are Graduate Teaching Assistants?
- What is a PhD?
- Integrated Masters with PhD – Explained
- What are Professional Doctorates?
Recent Research Guides for 2023
Get 15% off your first order with my research topics.
Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.
UP TO 25 % DISCOUNT
Get Your Research Paper Completed At Lower Prices
My Research Topics is provides assistance since 2004 to Research Students Globally. We help PhD, Psyd, MD, Mphil, Undergrad, High school, College, Masters students to compete their research paper & Dissertations. Our Step by step mentorship helps students to understand the research paper making process.
Research Topics & Ideas
- Microeconomics Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
- Hospitality Industry Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
- Sports Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
- Research Topics & Ideas On Electronics Communication Engineering
- American History Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
- History Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
- Literary Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
- Research Paper On Homelessness For College Students
- How to Write a Hook for Research Paper
- Qualitative Research
- How to write a literature review in a research paper
- Problem Statement In Research – Complete Guide
Disclaimer: The Reference papers provided by the Myresearchtopics.com serve as model and sample papers for students and are not to be submitted as it is. These papers are intended to be used for reference and research purposes only.
Opinion Forget the Trump trials. He might already be ineligible for 2024.
None of the criminal prosecutions of Donald Trump , even if he is convicted, can constitutionally stop him from running in — and winning — next year’s election.
But there’s a serious argument that, separate from any criminal charges, Trump is constitutionally disqualified from returning to the White House because of his role in the Jan. 6 , 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. And if the Constitution bars him from the presidency, then he’s not entitled to be on the ballot, and it becomes the job of state election officials to keep him off.
Two prominent conservative scholars have added their voices — and, more important, their extensive analysis of the relevant historical record — in support of this argument. They conclude that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to prohibit former federal officeholders who joined the Confederacy from holding office again, applies broadly to any “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States and not solely to the South’s secession from the Union.
These scholars explain in a forthcoming law review article that the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was an insurrection within the meaning of this clause and, crucially, that Trump engaged in this insurrection within the clause’s meaning, by both fomenting it and failing to exercise his presidential powers to stop it once it was underway. Refuting the view that the president is not an “officer” to whom this provision applies, these scholars cogently note that John Tyler was a former president and John Breckinridge a former vice president who both joined the Confederacy, and surely the framers of the 14th Amendment intended its disqualification from future office to apply to the likes of them .
The Supreme Court has not ruled on these issues. The 2024 campaign is underway with Trump far ahead in national polls of Republican voters and, in polls of all registered voters, running even against President Biden in a potential general-election matchup. For the sake of the nation’s system of self-government, the Supreme Court must settle the question of whether Trump constitutionally can be president again — before the Republican convention is held next July.
Ideally, this case would be settled before the primaries begin in January. Realistically, however, that might not be possible. As long as the Supreme Court resolves this issue before the Republican delegates meet in Milwaukee for their presidential nomination convention, their party can avoid nominating a candidate who is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency. That way, voters in November 2024 would not be making a choice in which one of the two major-party contenders would be ineligible to serve if elected.
What would be disastrous for democracy would be for Trump to appear on the November 2024 ballot as the Republican nominee, then to win the election, and afterward be disqualified and denied a second term. Yet that could happen if, without a Supreme Court ruling before the GOP convention, Congress were to decide for itself that Trump was disqualified and so it must nullify the will of the voters when it convenes to count the electoral college votes in January 2025.
How then to get the case properly before the Supreme Court in time?
Lawsuits on behalf of voters are already being planned , but for technical reasons concerning the jurisdictions of courts, it would be preferable if a state election official, such as a secretary of state, made a preliminary administrative ruling of Trump’s constitutional ineligibility and then sought judicial confirmation of this determination in state court. Consistent with due process, Trump — and voters who want him on the ballot — would be entitled to challenge this administrative decision in court. Whichever way the state court ruled could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, whose decision would be binding on all the states.
So far, so good. But there’s one important wrinkle. State law needs to permit election officials to make this kind of decision. If a state statute has not already authorized administrative officers to seek disqualification of presidential candidates , then — as the Supreme Court signaled this year — it might be a usurpation of the state legislature’s prerogative to determine the “manner” of conducting presidential elections for these officials to assert this power on their own.
Consequently, the safest course is for a state legislature to clarify, by enacting a new statute as soon as possible, that its election officials have the power to remove insurrectionists from the presidential ballot. A new statute could create an expedited timetable to ensure that the case reaches the Supreme Court in time for a decision before the Republican convention in July.
A swing state controlled by Democrats, such as Michigan, could — and should — do this, but any single blue state would suffice. If any one state’s judiciary were to order Trump off the ballot, pursuant to this kind of statute, it would require the Supreme Court to resolve the matter for the entire nation.
Before it’s too late, a patriotic state legislature should take the step needed to avert the constitutional crisis, far greater than the Jan. 6 insurrection, that looms if voters elect a candidate whom the Constitution has made ineligible.
- Opinion | A fix to the mental health crisis is hiding in plain sight September 6, 2023 Opinion | A fix to the mental health crisis is hiding in plain sight September 6, 2023
- Opinion | Emotional labor at work is work. It should be compensated that way. September 5, 2023 Opinion | Emotional labor at work is work. It should be compensated that way. September 5, 2023
- Opinion | Three service secretaries to Tuberville: Stop this dangerous hold on senior officers September 4, 2023 Opinion | Three service secretaries to Tuberville: Stop this dangerous hold on senior officers September 4, 2023