how long is an article critique

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:

Publication Scope:

• 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.

Publication Type:

• 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.

Wrapping Up

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!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique, related articles.

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

• Writing an article SUMMARY
• Writing an article REVIEW

Writing an article CRITIQUE

• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

A critique asks you to evaluate an article and the author’s argument. You will need to look critically at what the author is claiming, evaluate the research methods, and look for possible problems with, or applications of, the researcher’s claims.

Introduction

Give an overview of the author’s main points and how the author supports those points. Explain what the author found and describe the process they used to arrive at this conclusion.

Body Paragraphs

Interpret the information from the article:

• Does the author review previous studies? Is current and relevant research used?
• What type of research was used – empirical studies, anecdotal material, or personal observations?
• Was the sample too small to generalize from?
• Was the participant group lacking in diversity (race, gender, age, education, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• For instance, volunteers gathered at a health food store might have different attitudes about nutrition than the population at large.
• How useful does this work seem to you? How does the author suggest the findings could be applied and how do you believe they could be applied?
• How could the study have been improved in your opinion?
• Does the author appear to have any biases (related to gender, race, class, or politics)?
• Is the writing clear and easy to follow? Does the author’s tone add to or detract from the article?
• How useful are the visuals (such as tables, charts, maps, photographs) included, if any? How do they help to illustrate the argument? Are they confusing or hard to read?
• What further research might be conducted on this subject?

Try to synthesize the pieces of your critique to emphasize your own main points about the author’s work, relating the researcher’s work to your own knowledge or to topics being discussed in your course.

From the Center for Academic Excellence (opens in a new window), University of Saint Joseph Connecticut

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

Writing an Article Critique (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

How to Critique an Article (from Essaypro.com)

How to Write an Article Critique (from EliteEditing.com.au)

• << Previous: Writing an article REVIEW
• Next: Citing Sources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

UMGC Effective Writing Center Writing to Critique

Explore more of umgc.

• Writing Resources

When you hear that your writing assignment is a “critique,” here’s what you do: instantly substitute the word “evaluation.” You see, essentially, that’s what a critique is—an e-value-ation. You rate the value of something. The value can be positive, negative or, most likely, a mix of the two.

Evaluating or critiquing is something that you do every day, whether you are aware of it or not. You do it personally—is this the right outfit for today’s video? I can’t believe my spouse did our townhouse totally in beige.

But you also do it professionally: Will my team’s plans for the new product launch work? Should I hire or promote this person? What’s the best notebook computer for the sales team? All of those contain an evaluation. As a matter of fact, your ability to think critically (in an evaluative fashion) and to offer compelling reasons and evidence for your evaluations is one of the most valued skills in the workplace and will play a crucial role in your career advancement.

Let’s take a look at the typical parts of a critique or evaluation essay and get to know what should be done in each one:

Introduction

Unlike the introduction to most of the essays you write in school, where the main purpose is simply to introduce the thesis, the introduction of a critique or evaluation essay is more complex.

First, you must introduce the author and the title of the work being critiqued. This information is often in the first sentence of a critique’s introduction, but so long as the info is at or near the top you are fine.

Second,  state the author’s main point (whether in the entire work or the section of the work you are critiquing). The main point is sometimes called the “take away”—what the author wants the reader to remember or do after reading.

Third, state in 1-2 sentences your overall evaluation of the work you are critiquing. If “overall evaluation” sounds like your conclusion, bingo, you are correct. So, it may be wise to leave this portion of your intro unwritten until you have finished your first draft.

Fourth, be sure to add any background information the reader needs to place the author’s work in context. What overall topic is the work related to? Is there a controversy involved? Be sure to set the stage since your reader has not read the work.

After the introduction comes part two: the summary of the work or that part of the work under consideration. When writing this summary, you are an objective reporter providing an unbiased statement of two things:

• the author’s overall point or take-away
• the main supports offered for that point

And like a good reporter, your language should be untainted by your own views and certainly be written in the third person—no I’s or you’s. Your goal: After someone reads a good summary (also called an abstract), that reader should know the author’s thesis and main points without detecting any of your opinion.

Part three is the evaluation. This is where you transition from being a reporter to being a judge. Just like a judge at a gymnastics meet, you weigh the strong points and the weak points of the performance, then provide an overall rating. Also, just like at a gymnastics meet, you have a scorecard of criteria that you use to make this judgment, this rating. However, instead of mount and dismount, flexibility and strength, your criteria are more likely to be items like this:

• Accuracy of information
• Presence or lack of definition of key terms
• Hidden assumptions
• Clarity of language
• Fairness—the author weighed both sides without undue bias
• Logic and Organization—do the main points link together in a meaningful way and add up to a valid argument? Are there gaps in the argument?
• Fallacies—these refer to such argument no-no’s as name calling, hasty generalization, oversimplification, substituting emotional language for fact or logic, or the black/white or either/or fallacy, the bandwagon appeal (everybody is doing it, so it must be OK), and so on.

Part four is the response. Now it’s your turn. You are no longer a reporter or a judge. You are you, providing your personal take on this work. How do you do that? Simple: Ask yourself questions like these:

• What do I agree and disagree with?
• What does the author get right, what does she/he get wrong, in my opinion?
• What ultimate merit does this work have—some, a little, none?
• Would I recommend this work as a source on this topic or should it be avoided—why or why not?

The response section is also where you would use outside sources to back up your opinion of this work and its merits or demerits. In that sense, your response section is like a miniature essay, where your thesis is your opinion of the work and your main points support your opinion.

Part five is the wrap up. It doesn’t have to be long. Your main tasks are to:

• Remind your audience of the overall importance of the topic—bring the reader back to ground zero, the topic at hand.
• Bring together your assessment or rating of the work, together with your personal response to it. In doing so, focus on overall strengths and weaknesses. Then use both to state what you believe is the ultimate success of the work .

So there you are—the mysteries of the “critique” demystified. You simply

• Introduce the work
• Summarize the work
• Rate the work based on a set of clear criteria
• Respond to the work in a personal way
• Wrap it up by talking about overall success failure of the work and the importance of the topic it tries to address.

Do those things—in that order—and you will end up with a critique that is sound and meaningful.

Our helpful admissions advisors can help you choose an academic program to fit your career goals, estimate your transfer credits, and develop a plan for your education costs that fits your budget. If you’re a current UMGC student, please visit the Help Center .

Personal Information

Contact information, additional information.

By submitting this form, you acknowledge that you intend to sign this form electronically and that your electronic signature is the equivalent of a handwritten signature, with all the same legal and binding effect. You are giving your express written consent without obligation for UMGC to contact you regarding our educational programs and services using e-mail, phone, or text, including automated technology for calls and/or texts to the mobile number(s) provided. For more details, including how to opt out, read our privacy policy or contact an admissions advisor .

Please wait, your form is being submitted.

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

How To Write an Article Critique: 4 Steps To Follow

If you need to know how to write an article critique, keep reading for our step-by-step guide.

In an article critique, you will be asked to critically read a research article, reflect on the article, and identify the strong and weak points of that piece. Whether you have been asked to critique a research paper, an essay, or an entire book, it would be best if you reflected on the argument’s effectiveness and validity. The key point to writing a solid article critique is to think critically.

Every author or researcher tries to convince you of the correctness of their point of view. However, even if that point of view is flawed, the author is trying to make it look good. Therefore, your job is to critique the paper critically, identifying its strong and weak points. There are several steps involved in the process.

Materials Needed

Step 1: read the piece, step 2: gather evidence to support your article critique, step 3: format your paper, step 4. proofread your article critique, what is the format of an article critique, what is the difference between a critique and a review, what are the components of a critique .

To write an article critique, there are several materials you need to have. They include:

• The paper, book, or article you are going to be critiquing
• A computer or a notepad you can use to take notes
• Writing materials, such as pens and pencils
• Highlighters and tabs you can use to keep the information organized

If you want to write a decisive critique, you need to read the piece first. On the other hand, you don’t want to try to read a summary and grasp everything from the article. Otherwise, you risk losing a significant amount of context from the article.

As you read the article or book, there are several questions you need to answer. They include:

• If the author is considered an expert or authority in the field, why is that the case?
• What is the thesis statement or hypothesis the author is presenting? Does the author have enough evidence to support their point of view?
• Who is the target audience of the article? For example, is the target audience people with a specific viewpoint, people of a particular background, or people with a predetermined point of view?
• Are the arguments presented in the article valid? Does it seem like the sources have been cherry-picked? Or does the author appear to consider all possible answers to the question?
• Does the author appear to have any flaws in the argument? Is the author overlooking something important?
• Does the author appear to reach a logical conclusion based on the evidence in the paper?

As you read through the article, you should take notes and answer the questions above. This will give you plenty of information you can use to craft your article critique. 

You need to note the author’s sources as you read the paper. These could include footnotes, endnotes, quotes, and other sources referenced in the paper. You may want to review the sources to ensure the author has drawn an appropriate conclusion based on the information in the source. You may also want to do your research to identify other sources that either support the author’s point of view or refute it.

You should also go to the article to see if there are any biased opinions. It is not unusual for someone to pick a side and not even consider the opposing point of view. If you believe you can draw a different logical conclusion based on the same evidence, you should include that in your article critique.

Remember that the language of the article will also play a vital role. You should pay close attention to word choice, particularly if the language is politically charged. Readers can interpret words differently, and you will need to explain the interpretation of the language in the article.

You may also want to identify any logical fallacies in the article. Some of the most common fallacies people use in their writing include:

• Ad Hominem: This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the individual instead of the substance of their point of view. Discrediting the person does not necessarily discredit the argument.
• Correlation and Causation: Correlation does not always equal causation. Just because something came first doesn’t mean it caused the second action. 
• Slippery Slope: Many people will make the “slippery slope” argument. Just because one action takes place doesn’t mean it will end up in the worst-case scenario. 

If you notice these logical fallacies, you should use them in your article critique. You might also be interested in learning how to write a case study .

You may be asked to follow APA format in your article critique. In general, there will be four separate parts to your article. They include:

• The Introduction: In the introduction, you need to include the author’s name and the title of the piece you are critiquing. You should also mention the core idea or point of view that the author has. It would be best if you also had a clear thesis reflecting your article critique’s direction.
• The Summary: In the summary, you need to include the main points of the article. If there are central arguments in the article, you should present them. Then, be sure to include the article’s main conclusion as well.
• The Critique: In your critique, you need to include both the strong and weak points of the article. Mention what the article does well, and mention what the article does poorly. You should discuss the evidence in the article and any other evidence you might have gathered.
• The Conclusion: Again, you should summarize the article’s key points. Conclude the validity of the piece you have analyzed. You may want to include some future directions that merit further research. 

Once you have finished your article critique, be sure to proofread it before you submit it.

Once you have finished your article critique, be sure to proofread it before you submit it. Check for spelling, grammar, and syntax errors when proofreading your article.

Frequently Asked Questions

In academic writing, the format of an article critique includes an introduction, a brief summary, the critique itself, and the conclusion. In your critique, you should include everything from the title of the article and the author’s ideas to the research methods and research questions (or journalistic questions), depending on whether you are critiquing a research paper or a journal article.

Generally, a good critique is written by someone considered an expert in that field. In contrast, a review is written by someone interested in that field but is not necessarily considered an expert.

The components of a critique paper include the background information and author’s main point (in the introduction), a summary in the body paragraphs, a critical evaluation in the critique section, and future research or following questions in conclusion.

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Meet Rachael, the editor at Become a Writer Today. With years of experience in the field, she is passionate about language and dedicated to producing high-quality content that engages and informs readers. When she's not editing or writing, you can find her exploring the great outdoors, finding inspiration for her next project.

View all posts

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

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

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.

Summary language

•     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…

Evaluation language

•     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…

Conclusion language

•     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

Writing critically.

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

Further resources

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

Writing Critiques

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

Manuscript review

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.

Offering suggestions

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

• Bipolar Disorder
• 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
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• 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 an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

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.

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Feb 12, 2024 1:11 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Overcoming low vision to prove my abilities under pressure

Career Q&A 28 MAR 24

How a spreadsheet helped me to land my dream job

Career Column 28 MAR 24

Maple-scented cacti and pom-pom cats: how pranking at work can lift lab spirits

Career Feature 27 MAR 24

Superconductivity case shows the need for zero tolerance of toxic lab culture

Correspondence 26 MAR 24

Cuts to postgraduate funding threaten Brazilian science — again

The beauty of what science can do when urgently needed

Career Q&A 26 MAR 24

The corpse of an exploded star and more — March’s best science images

News 28 MAR 24

How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

Nature is committed to diversifying its journalistic sources

Editorial 27 MAR 24

Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Ecological and Evolutionary Modeling

Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Ecosystem Ecology linked to IceLab’s Center for modeling adaptive mechanisms in living systems under stress

Umeå, Sweden

Umeå University

Faculty Positions in Westlake University

Founded in 2018, Westlake University is a new type of non-profit research-oriented university in Hangzhou, China, supported by public a...

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Postdoctoral Fellowships-Metabolic control of cell growth and senescence

Postdoctoral positions in the team Cell growth control by nutrients at Inst. Necker, Université Paris Cité, Inserm, Paris, France.

Paris, Ile-de-France (FR)

Inserm DR IDF Paris Centre Nord

Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine on Open Recruitment of Medical Talents and Postdocs

Director of Clinical Department, Professor, Researcher, Post-doctor

The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Warmly Welcomes Talents Abroad

“Qiushi” Distinguished Scholar, Zhejiang University, including Professor and Physician

No. 3, Qingchun East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang (CN)

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated with Zhejiang University School of Medicine

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Writing a Critical Analysis

What is in this guide, definitions, putting it together, tips and examples of critques.

• Background Information
• Cite Sources

Library Links

• Ask a Librarian
• Library Tutorials
• The Research Process
• Library Hours
• Online Databases (A-Z)
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Reserve a Study Room
• Report a Problem

This guide is meant to help you understand the basics of writing a critical analysis. A critical analysis is an argument about a particular piece of media. There are typically two parts: (1) identify and explain the argument the author is making, and (2), provide your own argument about that argument. Your instructor may have very specific requirements on how you are to write your critical analysis, so make sure you read your assignment carefully.

Critical Analysis

A deep approach to your understanding of a piece of media by relating new knowledge to what you already know.

Part 1: Introduction

• Identify the work being criticized.
• Present thesis - argument about the work.
• Preview your argument - what are the steps you will take to prove your argument.

Part 2: Summarize

• Provide a short summary of the work.
• Present only what is needed to know to understand your argument.

Part 3: Your Argument

• This is the bulk of your paper.
• Provide "sub-arguments" to prove your main argument.
• Use scholarly articles to back up your argument(s).

Part 4: Conclusion

• Reflect on  how  you have proven your argument.
• Point out the  importance  of your argument.
• Comment on the potential for further research or analysis.
• Cornell University Library Tips for writing a critical appraisal and analysis of a scholarly article.
• Queen's University Library How to Critique an Article (Psychology)
• University of Illinois, Springfield An example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article
• Next: Background Information >>
• Last Updated: Feb 14, 2024 4:33 PM
• URL: https://libguides.pittcc.edu/critical_analysis

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.

Explain relationships

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.

Analysis Papers

Reading Poetry

A Short Guide to Close Reading for Literary Analysis

Using Literary Quotations

Play Reviews

Writing a Rhetorical Précis to Analyze Nonfiction Texts

Incorporating Interview Data

Grant Proposals

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

Cover Letters

Business Letters

Proposals and Dissertations

Resources for Proposal Writers

Resources for Dissertators

Research Papers

Planning and Writing Research Papers

Quoting and Paraphrasing

Writing Annotated Bibliographies

Creating Poster Presentations

Writing an Abstract for Your Research Paper

Thank-You Notes

Advice for Students Writing Thank-You Notes to Donors

Reading for a Review

Critical Reviews

Writing a Review of Literature

Scientific Reports

Scientific Report Format

Sample Lab Assignment

Writing for the Web

Writing an Effective Blog Post

Writing for Social Media: A Guide for Academics

• Writing well

How to write a critique

• Starting well
• How to write an annotated bibliography
• How to write a case study response
• How to write an empirical article
• How to write an essay
• How to write a literature review
• How to write a reflective task
• How to write a report
• Finishing well

Before you start writing, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the work that will be critiqued.

• Study the work under discussion.
• Make notes on key parts of the work.
• Develop an understanding of the main argument or purpose being expressed in the work.
• Consider how the work relates to a broader issue or context.

Example template

There are a variety of ways to structure a critique. You should always check your unit materials or Canvas site for guidance from your lecturer. The following template, which showcases the main features of a critique, is provided as one example.

Introduction

Typically, the introduction is short (less than 10% of the word length) and you should:

• name the work being reviewed as well as the date it was created and the name of the author/creator
• describe the main argument or purpose of the work
• explain the context in which the work was created - this could include the social or political context, the place of the work in a creative or academic tradition, or the relationship between the work and the creator’s life experience
• have a concluding sentence that signposts what your evaluation of the work will be - for instance, it may indicate whether it is a positive, negative, or mixed evaluation.

Briefly summarise the main points and objectively describe how the creator portrays these by using techniques, styles, media, characters or symbols. This summary should not be the focus of the critique and is usually shorter than the critical evaluation.

Critical evaluation

This section should give a systematic and detailed assessment of the different elements of the work, evaluating how well the creator was able to achieve the purpose through these. For example: you would assess the plot structure, characterisation and setting of a novel; an assessment of a painting would look at composition, brush strokes, colour and light; a critique of a research project would look at subject selection, design of the experiment, analysis of data and conclusions.

A critical evaluation does not simply highlight negative impressions. It should deconstruct the work and identify both strengths and weaknesses. It should examine the work and evaluate its success, in light of its purpose.

Examples of key critical questions that could help your assessment include:

• Who is the creator? Is the work presented objectively or subjectively?
• What are the aims of the work? Were the aims achieved?
• What techniques, styles, media were used in the work? Are they effective in portraying the purpose?
• What assumptions underlie the work? Do they affect its validity?
• What types of evidence or persuasion are used? Has evidence been interpreted fairly?
• How is the work structured? Does it favour a particular interpretation or point of view? Is it effective?
• Does the work enhance understanding of key ideas or theories? Does the work engage (or fail to engage) with key concepts or other works in its discipline?

This evaluation is written in formal academic style and logically presented. Group and order your ideas into paragraphs. Start with the broad impressions first and then move into the details of the technical elements. For shorter critiques, you may discuss the strengths of the works, and then the weaknesses. In longer critiques, you may wish to discuss the positive and negative of each key critical question in individual paragraphs.

To support the evaluation, provide evidence from the work itself, such as a quote or example, and you should also cite evidence from related sources. Explain how this evidence supports your evaluation of the work.

This is usually a very brief paragraph, which includes:

• a statement indicating the overall evaluation of the work
• a summary of the key reasons, identified during the critical evaluation, why this evaluation was formed
• in some circumstances, recommendations for improvement on the work may be appropriate.

Reference list

Include all resources cited in your critique. Check with your lecturer/tutor for which referencing style to use.

• Mentioned the name of the work, the date of its creation and the name of the creator?
• Accurately summarised the work being critiqued?
• Mainly focused on the critical evaluation of the work?
• Systematically outlined an evaluation of each element of the work to achieve the overall purpose?
• Used evidence, from the work itself as well as other sources, to back and illustrate my assessment of elements of the work?
• Formed an overall evaluation of the work, based on critical reading?
• Used a well structured introduction, body and conclusion?
• Used correct grammar, spelling and punctuation; clear presentation; and appropriate referencing style?

Further information

• University of New South Wales: Writing a Critical Review
• University of Toronto: The Book Review or Article Critique

Global links and information

• Referencing and using sources
• Background and development
• Changes to QUT cite|write
• Need more help?
• Current students
• Current staff
• TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University)
• CRICOS No. 00213J
• ABN 83 791 724 622
• Last modified: 07-Mar-2023
• Accessibility
• Right to Information
• Feedback and suggestions

Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners

QUT acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the lands where QUT now stands.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Can Med Educ J
• v.12(3); 2021 Jun

Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews

Écrire, lire et revue critique, douglas archibald.

1 University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;

Maria Athina Martimianakis

2 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Why reviews matter

What do all authors of the CMEJ have in common? For that matter what do all health professions education scholars have in common? We all engage with literature. When you have an idea or question the first thing you do is find out what has been published on the topic of interest. Literature reviews are foundational to any study. They describe what is known about given topic and lead us to identify a knowledge gap to study. All reviews require authors to be able accurately summarize, synthesize, interpret and even critique the research literature. 1 , 2 In fact, for this editorial we have had to review the literature on reviews . Knowledge and evidence are expanding in our field of health professions education at an ever increasing rate and so to help keep pace, well written reviews are essential. Though reviews may be difficult to write, they will always be read. In this editorial we survey the various forms review articles can take. As well we want to provide authors and reviewers at CMEJ with some guidance and resources to be able write and/or review a review article.

What are the types of reviews conducted in Health Professions Education?

Health professions education attracts scholars from across disciplines and professions. For this reason, there are numerous ways to conduct reviews and it is important to familiarize oneself with these different forms to be able to effectively situate your work and write a compelling rationale for choosing your review methodology. 1 , 2 To do this, authors must contend with an ever-increasing lexicon of review type articles. In 2009 Grant and colleagues conducted a typology of reviews to aid readers makes sense of the different review types, listing fourteen different ways of conducting reviews, not all of which are mutually exclusive. 3 Interestingly, in their typology they did not include narrative reviews which are often used by authors in health professions education. In Table 1 , we offer a short description of three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ.

Three common types of review articles submitted to CMEJ

More recently, authors such as Greenhalgh 4 have drawn attention to the perceived hierarchy of systematic reviews over scoping and narrative reviews. Like Greenhalgh, 4 we argue that systematic reviews are not to be seen as the gold standard of all reviews. Instead, it is important to align the method of review to what the authors hope to achieve, and pursue the review rigorously, according to the tenets of the chosen review type. Sometimes it is helpful to read part of the literature on your topic before deciding on a methodology for organizing and assessing its usefulness. Importantly, whether you are conducting a review or reading reviews, appreciating the differences between different types of reviews can also help you weigh the author’s interpretation of their findings.

In the next section we summarize some general tips for conducting successful reviews.

How to write and review a review article

In 2016 David Cook wrote an editorial for Medical Education on tips for a great review article. 13 These tips are excellent suggestions for all types of articles you are considering to submit to the CMEJ. First, start with a clear question: focused or more general depending on the type of review you are conducting. Systematic reviews tend to address very focused questions often summarizing the evidence of your topic. Other types of reviews tend to have broader questions and are more exploratory in nature.

Following your question, choose an approach and plan your methods to match your question…just like you would for a research study. Fortunately, there are guidelines for many types of reviews. As Cook points out the most important consideration is to be sure that the methods you follow lead to a defensible answer to your review question. To help you prepare for a defensible answer there are many guides available. For systematic reviews consult PRISMA guidelines ; 13 for scoping reviews PRISMA-ScR ; 14 and SANRA 15 for narrative reviews. It is also important to explain to readers why you have chosen to conduct a review. You may be introducing a new way for addressing an old problem, drawing links across literatures, filling in gaps in our knowledge about a phenomenon or educational practice. Cook refers to this as setting the stage. Linking back to the literature is important. In systematic reviews for example, you must be clear in explaining how your review builds on existing literature and previous reviews. This is your opportunity to be critical. What are the gaps and limitations of previous reviews? So, how will your systematic review resolve the shortcomings of previous work? In other types of reviews, such as narrative reviews, its less about filling a specific knowledge gap, and more about generating new research topic areas, exposing blind spots in our thinking, or making creative new links across issues. Whatever, type of review paper you are working on, the next steps are ones that can be applied to any scholarly writing. Be clear and offer insight. What is your main message? A review is more than just listing studies or referencing literature on your topic. Lead your readers to a convincing message. Provide commentary and interpretation for the studies in your review that will help you to inform your conclusions. For systematic reviews, Cook’s final tip is most likely the most important– report completely. You need to explain all your methods and report enough detail that readers can verify the main findings of each study you review. The most common reasons CMEJ reviewers recommend to decline a review article is because authors do not follow these last tips. In these instances authors do not provide the readers with enough detail to substantiate their interpretations or the message is not clear. Our recommendation for writing a great review is to ensure you have followed the previous tips and to have colleagues read over your paper to ensure you have provided a clear, detailed description and interpretation.

Finally, we leave you with some resources to guide your review writing. 3 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 We look forward to seeing your future work. One thing is certain, a better appreciation of what different reviews provide to the field will contribute to more purposeful exploration of the literature and better manuscript writing in general.

In this issue we present many interesting and worthwhile papers, two of which are, in fact, reviews.

Major Contributions

A chance for reform: the environmental impact of travel for general surgery residency interviews by Fung et al. 18 estimated the CO 2 emissions associated with traveling for residency position interviews. Due to the high emissions levels (mean 1.82 tonnes per applicant), they called for the consideration of alternative options such as videoconference interviews.

Understanding community family medicine preceptors’ involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action by Ward and team 19 identified barriers, enablers, and opportunities to grow educational scholarship at community-based teaching sites. They discovered a growing interest in educational scholarship among community-based family medicine preceptors and hope the identification of successful processes will be beneficial for other community-based Family Medicine preceptors.

Exploring the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: an international cross-sectional study of medical learners by Allison Brown and team 20 studied the impact of COVID-19 on medical learners around the world. There were different concerns depending on the levels of training, such as residents’ concerns with career timeline compared to trainees’ concerns with the quality of learning. Overall, the learners negatively perceived the disruption at all levels and geographic regions.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment? by Susan Humphrey-Murto and co-authors 21 considered factors that lead to the publication of studies supported by local medical education grants. They identified several factors associated with publication success, including previous oral or poster presentations. They hope their results will be valuable for Canadian centres with local grant programs.

Exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical learner wellness: a needs assessment for the development of learner wellness interventions by Stephana Cherak and team 22 studied learner-wellness in various training environments disrupted by the pandemic. They reported a negative impact on learner wellness at all stages of training. Their results can benefit the development of future wellness interventions.

Program directors’ reflections on national policy change in medical education: insights on decision-making, accreditation, and the CanMEDS framework by Dore, Bogie, et al. 23 invited program directors to reflect on the introduction of the CanMEDS framework into Canadian postgraduate medical education programs. Their survey revealed that while program directors (PDs) recognized the necessity of the accreditation process, they did not feel they had a voice when the change occurred. The authors concluded that collaborations with PDs would lead to more successful outcomes.

Experiential learning, collaboration and reflection: key ingredients in longitudinal faculty development by Laura Farrell and team 24 stressed several elements for effective longitudinal faculty development (LFD) initiatives. They found that participants benefited from a supportive and collaborative environment while trying to learn a new skill or concept.

Brief Reports

The effect of COVID-19 on medical students’ education and wellbeing: a cross-sectional survey by Stephanie Thibaudeau and team 25 assessed the impact of COVID-19 on medical students. They reported an overall perceived negative impact, including increased depressive symptoms, increased anxiety, and reduced quality of education.

In Do PGY-1 residents in Emergency Medicine have enough experiences in resuscitations and other clinical procedures to meet the requirements of a Competence by Design curriculum? Meshkat and co-authors 26 recorded the number of adult medical resuscitations and clinical procedures completed by PGY1 Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in Emergency Medicine residents to compare them to the Competence by Design requirements. Their study underscored the importance of monitoring collection against pre-set targets. They concluded that residency program curricula should be regularly reviewed to allow for adequate clinical experiences.

Rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults by Anita Cheng and team 27 studied whether rehearsal simulation for antenatal consults helped residents prepare for difficult conversations with parents expecting complications with their baby before birth. They found that while rehearsal simulation improved residents’ confidence and communication techniques, it did not prepare them for unexpected parent responses.

Review Papers and Meta-Analyses

Peer support programs in the fields of medicine and nursing: a systematic search and narrative review by Haykal and co-authors 28 described and evaluated peer support programs in the medical field published in the literature. They found numerous diverse programs and concluded that including a variety of delivery methods to meet the needs of all participants is a key aspect for future peer-support initiatives.

Towards competency-based medical education in addictions psychiatry: a systematic review by Bahji et al. 6 identified addiction interventions to build competency for psychiatry residents and fellows. They found that current psychiatry entrustable professional activities need to be better identified and evaluated to ensure sustained competence in addictions.

Six ways to get a grip on leveraging the expertise of Instructional Design and Technology professionals by Chen and Kleinheksel 29 provided ways to improve technology implementation by clarifying the role that Instructional Design and Technology professionals can play in technology initiatives and technology-enhanced learning. They concluded that a strong collaboration is to the benefit of both the learners and their future patients.

In his article, Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process, 30 Simon Field provided guidelines for maximizing opportunities for successful promotion experiences. His seven tips included creating a rubric for both self-assessment of likeliness of success and adjudication by the committee.

Six ways to get a grip on your first health education leadership role by Stasiuk and Scott 31 provided tips for considering a health education leadership position. They advised readers to be intentional and methodical in accepting or rejecting positions.

Re-examining the value proposition for Competency-Based Medical Education by Dagnone and team 32 described the excitement and controversy surrounding the implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) by Canadian postgraduate training programs. They proposed observing which elements of CBME had a positive impact on various outcomes.

You Should Try This

In their work, Interprofessional culinary education workshops at the University of Saskatchewan, Lieffers et al. 33 described the implementation of interprofessional culinary education workshops that were designed to provide health professions students with an experiential and cooperative learning experience while learning about important topics in nutrition. They reported an enthusiastic response and cooperation among students from different health professional programs.

In their article, Physiotherapist-led musculoskeletal education: an innovative approach to teach medical students musculoskeletal assessment techniques, Boulila and team 34 described the implementation of physiotherapist-led workshops, whether the workshops increased medical students’ musculoskeletal knowledge, and if they increased confidence in assessment techniques.

Instagram as a virtual art display for medical students by Karly Pippitt and team 35 used social media as a platform for showcasing artwork done by first-year medical students. They described this shift to online learning due to COVID-19. Using Instagram was cost-saving and widely accessible. They intend to continue with both online and in-person displays in the future.

Adapting clinical skills volunteer patient recruitment and retention during COVID-19 by Nazerali-Maitland et al. 36 proposed a SLIM-COVID framework as a solution to the problem of dwindling volunteer patients due to COVID-19. Their framework is intended to provide actionable solutions to recruit and engage volunteers in a challenging environment.

In Quick Response codes for virtual learner evaluation of teaching and attendance monitoring, Roxana Mo and co-authors 37 used Quick Response (QR) codes to monitor attendance and obtain evaluations for virtual teaching sessions. They found QR codes valuable for quick and simple feedback that could be used for many educational applications.

In Creation and implementation of the Ottawa Handbook of Emergency Medicine Kaitlin Endres and team 38 described the creation of a handbook they made as an academic resource for medical students as they shift to clerkship. It includes relevant content encountered in Emergency Medicine. While they intended it for medical students, they also see its value for nurses, paramedics, and other medical professionals.

Commentary and Opinions

The alarming situation of medical student mental health by D’Eon and team 39 appealed to medical education leaders to respond to the high numbers of mental health concerns among medical students. They urged leaders to address the underlying problems, such as the excessive demands of the curriculum.

In the shadows: medical student clinical observerships and career exploration in the face of COVID-19 by Law and co-authors 40 offered potential solutions to replace in-person shadowing that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They hope the alternatives such as virtual shadowing will close the gap in learning caused by the pandemic.

Letters to the Editor

Canadian Federation of Medical Students' response to “ The alarming situation of medical student mental health” King et al. 41 on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Medical Students (CFMS) responded to the commentary by D’Eon and team 39 on medical students' mental health. King called upon the medical education community to join the CFMS in its commitment to improving medical student wellbeing.

Re: “Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology” 42 was written by Kirubarajan in response to the article by Development of a medical education podcast in obstetrics and gynecology by Black and team. 43 Kirubarajan applauded the development of the podcast to meet a need in medical education, and suggested potential future topics such as interventions to prevent learner burnout.

Response to “First year medical student experiences with a clinical skills seminar emphasizing sexual and gender minority population complexity” by Kumar and Hassan 44 acknowledged the previously published article by Biro et al. 45 that explored limitations in medical training for the LGBTQ2S community. However, Kumar and Hassen advocated for further progress and reform for medical training to address the health requirements for sexual and gender minorities.

In her letter, Journey to the unknown: road closed!, 46 Rosemary Pawliuk responded to the article, Journey into the unknown: considering the international medical graduate perspective on the road to Canadian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic, by Gutman et al. 47 Pawliuk agreed that international medical students (IMGs) do not have adequate formal representation when it comes to residency training decisions. Therefore, Pawliuk challenged health organizations to make changes to give a voice in decision-making to the organizations representing IMGs.

In Connections, 48 Sara Guzman created a digital painting to portray her approach to learning. Her image of a hand touching a neuron showed her desire to physically see and touch an active neuron in order to further understand the brain and its connections.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.1: What’s a Critique and Why Does it Matter?

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 6510

• Steven D. Krause
• Eastern Michigan University

Critiques evaluate and analyze a wide variety of things (texts, images, performances, etc.) based on reasons or criteria. Sometimes, people equate the notion of “critique” to “criticism,” which usually suggests a negative interpretation. These terms are easy to confuse, but I want to be clear that critique and criticize don’t mean the same thing. A negative critique might be said to be “criticism” in the way we often understand the term “to criticize,” but critiques can be positive too.

We’re all familiar with one of the most basic forms of critique: reviews (film reviews, music reviews, art reviews, book reviews, etc.). Critiques in the form of reviews tend to have a fairly simple and particular point: whether or not something is “good” or “bad.”

Academic critiques are similar to the reviews we see in popular sources in that critique writers are trying to make a particular point about whatever it is that they are critiquing. But there are some differences between the sorts of critiques we read in academic sources versus the ones we read in popular sources.

• The subjects of academic critiques tend to be other academic writings and they frequently appear in scholarly journals.
• Academic critiques frequently go further in making an argument beyond a simple assessment of the quality of a particular book, film, performance, or work of art. Academic critique writers will often compare and discuss several works that are similar to each other to make some larger point. In other words, instead of simply commenting on whether something was good or bad, academic critiques tend to explore issues and ideas in ways that are more complicated than merely “good” or “bad.”

The main focus of this chapter is the value of writing critiques as a part of the research writing process. Critiquing writing is important because in order to write a good critique you need to critically read : that is, you need to closely read and understand whatever it is you are critiquing, you need to apply appropriate criteria in order evaluate it, you need to summarize it, and to ultimately make some sort of point about the text you are critiquing.

These skills-- critically and closely reading, summarizing, creating and applying criteria, and then making an evaluation-- are key to The Process of Research Writing, and they should help you as you work through the process of research writing.

In this chapter, I’ve provided a “step-by-step” process for making a critique. I would encourage you to quickly read or skim through this chapter first, and then go back and work through the steps and exercises describe.

Selecting the right text to critique

The first step in writing a critique is selecting a text to critique. For the purposes of this writing exercise, you should check with your teacher for guidelines on what text to pick. If you are doing an annotated bibliography as part of your research project (see chapter 6, “The Annotated Bibliography Exercise”), then you are might find more materials that will work well for this project as you continuously research.

Short and simple newspaper articles, while useful as part of the research process, can be difficult to critique since they don’t have the sort of detail that easily allows for a critical reading. On the other hand, critiquing an entire book is probably a more ambitious task than you are likely to have time or energy for with this exercise. Instead, consider critiquing one of the more fully developed texts you’ve come across in your research: an in-depth examination from a news magazine, a chapter from a scholarly book, a report on a research study or experiment, or an analysis published in an academic journal. These more complex essays usually present more opportunities for issues to critique.

Depending on your teacher’s assignment, the “text” you critique might include something that isn’t in writing: a movie, a music CD, a multimedia presentation, a computer game, a painting, etc. As is the case with more traditional writings, you want to select a text that has enough substance to it so that it stands up to a critical reading.

Exercise 7.1

Pick out at least three different possibilities for texts that you could critique for this exercise. If you’ve already started work on your research and an annotated bibliography for your research topic, you should consider those pieces of research as possibilities. Working alone or in small groups, consider the potential of each text. Here are some questions to think about:

• Does the text provide in-depth information? How long is it? Does it include a “works cited” or bibliography section?
• What is the source of the text? Does it come from an academic, professional, or scholarly publication?
• Does the text advocate a particular position? What is it, and do you agree or disagree with the text?

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article 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
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• English Grammar
• Writing Paragraphs

How to Write a Critique in Five Paragraphs

Last Updated: January 20, 2024 Fact Checked

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. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 971,817 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

Sample Critiques

Community Q&A

• 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
• ↑ https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/write/writing-well/critique.html
• ↑ 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

Lura Norton

Feb 7, 2017

Did this article help you?

Ahmed Misry

Sep 30, 2017

Celia Seecharan

Feb 11, 2017

Sep 23, 2017

Lusady Taylor

Jul 28, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

Writing a Critique

• About this Guide
• What Is a Critique?
• Getting Started
• Components of a Critique Essay

Types of Critiques

There are many types of critiques. Critiques can be written on:

• Literary works
• Published works
• Drafts of works
• Policies, of any kind
• Works of art

Anywhere that criticism can exist, a critique can follow to evaluate arguments, identify gaps, and/or make recommendations. 

Defining Critique

A critique evaluates a resource. It requires both critical reading and analysis in order to present the strengths and weaknesses of a particular resource for readers. The critique includes your opinion of the work. Because of the analytics involved, a critique and a summary are not the same. For quick reference, you can use the following chart in order to determine if your paper is a critique or a summary.

Looking for more information on writing a summary or an abstract? Check out our Writing a Summary guide . 

• << Previous: About this Guide
• Next: Getting Started >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://library.tiffin.edu/critique

AFS Programs

Mastering the Article Evaluation Process: How to Critique an Article

When it comes to evaluating academic articles, many students find themselves at a loss. The process can seem complicated and overwhelming, but it doesn’t have to be. In this article, we will discuss a simple and practical step-by-step guide to help you master the art of critiquing articles.

The first step in evaluating an article is to carefully read and understand it. This means engaging in a thorough discussion with the text, taking note of the main points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author. Pay special attention to the thesis statement, as it will provide you with an understanding of the author’s main claim.

After you have read and understood the article, it’s time to analyze and evaluate it. This is where your critical thinking skills will come into play. Look for any weaknesses or flaws in the author’s arguments, statements that might need further research or evidence to support them, as well as any inaccurate or misleading information. A good critique will provide a balanced analysis of both the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

One of the most important aspects of article critique is the evaluation of the author’s research. It’s crucial to assess the quality, relevance, and reliability of the sources used by the author. Look for citations from reputable journals and scholarly resources, as this indicates that the author has conducted a thorough and well-researched study.

Finally, be sure to take into account the language and writing style used by the author. While it’s important for academic writing to be analytical and well-reasoned, it shouldn’t be overly stuffy or difficult to understand. A good article should present complex ideas in a clear and accessible manner, making it reader-friendly.

By following these steps and mastering the article evaluation process, you will be able to write your own critiques with confidence. Remember to use the resources available to you, such as guidelines provided by your professor or specific evaluation criteria for the subject you are studying. With practice, you will become a skilled and thorough article critic, ready to engage in meaningful and valuable discussions.

Evaluating an Article: The First Step Towards Mastery

Next, take a look at the article’s structure and format. Is it well-organized, concise, and ready for the reader to dive in? Are there clear sections and subsections that help you navigate the content? A well-formatted article makes it easier for you to follow the author’s arguments and analysis.

Now it’s time to read the contents of the article more thoroughly. As you read, make notes on the key points and main arguments presented by the author. Are their claims effectively supported by evidence or examples? Are there any logical fallacies or biases in their reasoning?

When evaluating an article, it’s crucial to also consider the length and effectiveness of the article. Is the article too long and repetitive, or is it too short and lacks sufficient information? The article should strike a balance between being comprehensive and concise.

Remember to put yourself in the reader’s shoes when evaluating an article. What kind of information or analysis would be helpful to them? Are there any aspects that may need further clarification or context? By keeping the reader in mind, you can provide a more relevant and comprehensive evaluation.

Lastly, it’s recommended to follow some guidelines or tips for critiquing and evaluating articles. These guidelines can include aspects like the accuracy of information, the quality of the writing, the use of references, and the overall coherence of the article. They can also stress the importance of using evidence to support claims and avoiding personal biases.

Understanding the Importance of Article Evaluation

A thorough article evaluation also involves critically assessing the article’s use of language. Look for any grammar or spelling errors, inconsistencies in writing style, and clarity of expression. Keep in mind that an article written in an engaging and reader-friendly manner is more likely to be well-received.

While conducting your evaluation, it is important to follow some guidelines and steps. Start with a summary of the article, highlighting the main points and arguments. This will help you get a quick overview and will also serve as a useful reference point during your critique. Don’t get too caught up in descriptive sketches, stick to the key considerations.

When making your critique, consider the context in which the article was written and the variables that may have influenced the author’s perspective. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the article’s arguments and the extent to which they are logically supported. Look for any biases or limitations that may affect the credibility of the article.

It is also important to remember that article critiques are not limited to formal academic documents. You can also apply these evaluation skills to other types of articles, such as news articles or opinion pieces. The same principles of analysis and assessment can be used to assess the effectiveness and validity of various points being made.

Key Elements to Look for in an Article

When evaluating an article, there are several key elements to consider. These elements can help the reader determine the effectiveness and value of the article. Here are 3 important factors to look for:

• Abstract: The abstract provides a concise summary of the article’s main points and presents the key findings. It is recommended to read the abstract first, as it can help the reader quickly evaluate whether the article is relevant to their subject of interest.
• Methodology and Results: The methodology section outlines the variables and methods used in the research. It is important to evaluate whether the methodology is appropriate and supported by previous studies. The results section presents the findings of the research, and it is crucial to assess whether the results are presented in a clear and concise manner.

In addition to these key elements, there are other aspects to consider while critiquing an article. For instance, evaluate the language and writing style used by the authors. Is it clear and easy to understand, or is it overly technical and difficult to follow? Also, pay attention to the structure of the article. Does it have a logical flow, with well-organized parts and clear headings? Moreover, consider the context in which the article was published. Is it a reputable source, such as a peer-reviewed journal or a well-known thesis? Evaluating these elements will help an avid reader effectively process the contents of the article.

Developing a Critical Approach to Article Analysis

While reading an article, it is recommended to jot down concise notes about variables, measures, and statistical analyses, among other crucial aspects. This will help when it comes to evaluating the article in more detail during the critique process.

For students who are new to critiquing articles, it is useful to utilize external resources that provide guidelines on article evaluation. These resources can offer practical tips and examples to aid in the understanding of how to critically analyze an article.

One such resource is this essay-writing service, which presents a step-by-step guide for analyzing academic articles. It provides a window into the whole process, from the initial reading to writing a detailed critique.

When evaluating an article, it is important to assess the reliability and validity of the research supported by evidence. This means considering the date the article was published, the resources it cites, and whether the results are supported by other studies.

In the analysis section of a critique, readers can follow a structured approach, considering the effectiveness of the study and whether the research question was addressed adequately. Evaluating the clarity and conciseness of the article’s writing is also crucial.

Key Aspects of Article Analysis

1. The overall purpose and aims of the study that the article presents.

2. An overview of the study’s methods and design.

3. An evaluation of the results and whether they support the research question.

By developing a critical approach, students and researchers will be ready to analyze articles with a more discerning eye. They will have the skills and knowledge to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of academic works, and to identify areas for further research or improvement.

Utilizing Effective Criteria for Article Critique

When it comes to mastering the article evaluation process, analyzing and critiquing papers can be a challenging task. However, by utilizing effective criteria, you can make the process easier and ensure a thorough assessment of the article’s content and validity. Here are some recommended considerations to start you off:

• Title and Context: Take a quick glance at the title and context of the article to get an idea of what it might be about. This will help you in understanding whether the article is relevant to your research or not.
• Summary and Discussion: Look for a concise summary of the article’s main points and a discussion of the results or findings. This will give you an idea of how well the author has summarized their research and the effectiveness of their analysis.
• Methods and Research: Assess the methods and research conducted by the author. Consider whether the methods used are appropriate and if the research is reliable and valid.
• Analysis and Results: Analyze the author’s interpretation of the results and their implications. Think critically about the accuracy and validity of the results presented.
• Writing Style and Clarity: Consider the author’s writing style and how effectively they communicate their ideas. Assess whether the article is written in a clear and concise manner.
• References and Resources: Check the references cited by the authors to assess the quality and relevance of their sources.
• Overall Impact: Assess the overall impact of the article and whether it contributes something unique or valuable to the subject of study.

By following these tips and utilizing effective criteria, you can critically evaluate and critique articles with more confidence and accuracy. This analytical approach will help you in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of written pieces, making the article evaluation process more efficient and resourceful.

What is the purpose of evaluating an article?

The purpose of evaluating an article is to critically analyze its content, methodology, and relevance in order to determine its quality and credibility.

What are some key steps to follow when evaluating an article?

Some key steps to follow when evaluating an article include reading it thoroughly, identifying the main research question or objective, assessing the methodology and data analysis, evaluating the author’s arguments and supporting evidence, and considering the article’s overall contribution to the field.

How can I critique the content of an article?

To critique the content of an article, you can assess the clarity and coherence of the arguments presented, evaluate the logical flow of ideas, and consider the relevance and significance of the findings in relation to the research question or objective.

What are some common criteria for evaluating the methodology of an article?

Some common criteria for evaluating the methodology of an article include the sample size and demographics, the research design and data collection methods employed, the validity and reliability of the measures used, and the appropriateness of the statistical analysis.

How can I determine the credibility of the sources used in an article?

To determine the credibility of the sources used in an article, you can evaluate the author’s expertise and qualifications, assess the reputation and credibility of the journals or publishers cited, and cross-reference the information with other reliable sources.

By Alex Koliada, PhD

Alex Koliada, PhD, is a well-known doctor. He is famous for studying aging, genetics, and other medical conditions. He works at the Institute of Food Biotechnology and Genomics. His scientific research has been published in the most reputable international magazines. Alex holds a BA in English and Comparative Literature from the University of Southern California , and a TEFL certification from The Boston Language Institute.

What is Good Friday? What the holy day means for Christians around the world

Christians around the world observe Good Friday two days before Easter, but what is it, and why do they commemorate the holy day?

The holiday is part of Holy Week, which leads up to Easter Sunday. Palm Sunday kicks off the series of Christian holy days that commemorate the Crucifixion and celebrate Jesus Christ's resurrection.

"Good Friday has been, for centuries now, the heart of the Christian message because it is through the death of Jesus Christ that Christians believe that we have been forgiven of our sins," Daniel Alvarez, an associate teaching professor of religious studies at Florida International University, told USA TODAY.

What is Holy Saturday? What the day before Easter means for Christians around the world

When is Good Friday?

Good Friday is always the Friday before Easter. It's the second-to-last day of Holy Week.

In 2024, Good Friday will fall on March 29.

What is Good Friday?

Good Friday is the day Christ was sacrificed on the cross. According to Britannica , it is a day for "sorrow, penance, and fasting."

"Good Friday is part of something else," Gabriel Radle, an assistant professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame, previously told USA TODAY. "It's its own thing, but it's also part of something bigger."

Are Good Friday and Passover related?

Alvarez says that Good Friday is directly related to the Jewish holiday, Passover.

Passover , or Pesach, is a major Jewish holiday that celebrates the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt.

"The whole Christian idea of atoning for sin, that Jesus is our atonement, is strictly derived from the Jewish Passover tradition," said Alvarez.

How is that possible?

According to the professor, Passover celebrates the day the "Angel of Death" passed over the homes of Israelites who were enslaved by the Egyptians. He said that the Bible states when the exodus happened, families were told to paint their doors with lamb's blood so that God would spare the lives of their firstborn sons.

Alvarez says this is why Christians call Jesus the "lamb of God." He adds that the symbolism of the "blood of the lamb" ties the two stories together and is why Christians believe God sacrificed his firstborn son. Because, through his blood, humanity is protected from the "wrath of a righteous God that cannot tolerate sin."

He adds that the stories of the exodus and the Crucifixion not only further tie the stories together but also emphasize just how powerful the sacrifice of the firstborn and the shedding of blood are in religion.

"Jesus is the firstborn, so the whole idea of the death of the firstborn is crucial," said Alvarez.

He adds that the sacrifice of the firstborn, specifically a firstborn son, comes from an ancient and "primitive" idea that the sacrifice unleashes "tremendous power that is able to fend off any kind of force, including the wrath of God."

Why Is Good Friday so somber?

Alavarez says people might think this holiday is more depressing or sad than others because of how Catholics commemorate the Crucifixion.

"I think [it's] to a level that some people might think is morbid," said Alvarez.

He said Catholics not only meditate on Jesus' death, but primarily focus on the suffering he faced in the events that led up to his Crucifixion. That's what makes it such a mournful day for people.

But, the professor says that Jesus' suffering in crucial to Christianity as a whole.

"The suffering of Christ is central to the four Gospels," said Alvarez. "Everything else is incidental."

According to the professor, statues that use blood to emphasize the way Jesus and Catholic saints suffered is very common in Spanish and Hispanic Countries, but not as prevalent in American churches.

Do you fast on Good Friday?

Father Dustin Dought, the executive director of the Secretariat of Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, previously told USA TODAY that Good Friday and Ash Wednesday are the two days in the year that Roman Catholics are obliged to fast.

"This practice is a way of emptying ourselves so that we can be filled with God," said Dought.

What do you eat on Good Friday?

Many Catholics do not eat meat on any Friday during Lent. Anything with flesh is off-limits. Dought says this practice is to honor the way Jesus sacrificed his flesh on Good Friday.

Meat that is off limits includes:

Instead, many Catholics will eat fish. According to the Marine Stewardship Council , this is allowed because fish is considered to be a different type of flesh.

Contributing: Jordan Mendoza ; USA TODAY

South Park: Snow Day! Review

Dull, toothless, and a big step in the wrong direction for south park games..

Like being trapped indoors without power during an actual blizzard, playing South Park: Snow Day! had me frigidly wishing I could be anywhere else. A direct follow-up to the storyline of two excellent turn-based RPGs and a decent mobile spin-off , this cooperative 3D hack-and-slash admirably tries a lot of new things – but it throws the baby out with the bathwater in the process, leaving us with a monotonous, slipshod mess. The controls are awkward and clumsy, the weapons and abilities are limp and uninteresting, and even with only five levels that can be completed in as many hours, it still feels like it drags on for far too long. Worse than that though: all the humor and shocking moments for which South Park and its recent games are known is utterly missing in action, leaving little to recommend about this hollow, repetitious dud. I don’t know what we did to deserve going from a masterful Obsidian RPG that aptly captured South Park’s attitude to this, but boy does the fall hurt.

South Park: Snow Day! is a perplexingly boring third-person multiplayer game, where you and up to three of your unluckiest friends smack and blast your way through waves of samey first graders. Aside from some mildly interesting card-based leveling mechanics and an amusing one-liner here and there (like when Jimbo takes a well-deserved jab at NFTs) there are remarkably few glimmers of potential in this misadventure. But the vast majority of your time will be spent trudging through five levels of repetitive and tedious hack-and-slash combat that feels like it’s straight out of 2008 and never gets more interesting.

South Park: Snow Day! Gameplay Screenshots

Even more disappointing is that it never once made me gasp or guffaw at an outrageous situation. South Park: The Stick of Truth saw us spelunking in Mr. Slave’s large intestine, dodging genitalia in the world’s most messed up rendition of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, and questing in the two-dimensional and entirely accurately represented “country” of Canada. It was filled with hilarious moments that made me question how in the heck Ubisoft avoided an Adults Only rating from the ESRB. The same was largely true in the followup from Ubisoft’s internal studio, The Fractured But Whole . Snow Day returns to the Stick of Truth’s make-believe fantasy setting, but here you just occasionally fart every once in a while in lieu of actual jokes. Sure, there are some very minor moments that made me smile, like the final boss fight being a surprisingly timely reference to Dune, but those moments are so few and far between that they only ever served to get my hopes up before dashing them all over again. This is perhaps the most toothless South Park adventure ever created, which often feels like it’s directed towards actual children rather than the revolting reprobates, like me, who came here specifically to be shocked and disgusted.

The story is straightforward and one-note, as you and the South Park gang decide to continue your fantasy adventures during a snow day, and you proceed to fight against them and their hordes of minions in battle one at a time. The whole thing lasts about five hours and very little of note happens along the way – there are no big surprises, zero horrifying gross-out moments, and even the characters you know and love behave in a bizarrely tame fashion compared to how you’d expect after all these years. The wholly unhinged Randy makes a few appearances where he’s hoarding toilet paper, but never flies off the rails or delivers any memorable one-liners; even Cartman, whose entire personality is being the biggest monster imaginable, is mostly well-behaved the whole way through, despite briefly doing a stint as the bad guy himself. That appallingly flat writing makes an already bad game not even worth pushing through for a few laughs, and that’s an extremely hard pill to swallow as a decades-long South Park fan.

Should the next South Park game be turn-based or real-time combat?

After setting the bar so low it was difficult to imagine, but the untidy, soulless combat that accounts for the vast majority of playtime is Snow Day’s biggest miss. You select one of three melee weapons (twin daggers, a sword and shield, or a battle ax) and one of three ranged weapons (a bow and arrow, a wizard’s staff, or a wand) to bring into battle, allowing for precious few options for how to play. Not that it matters, really, because thanks to the floaty and imprecise controls, none of these options feel good to begin with. Each of the ranged weapons does damage from afar, requiring a cooldown or charge time that’s so long it’s almost always not worth the trouble, while all three of the melee weapons are at least more reliable for damage, but don’t lock on to enemies, have awful hit detection, and when you do connect it feels a bit like dueling someone with a helium balloon.

The only other major tools in your arsenal are the two equally underwhelming powers you get to equip, selected from eight total options, which include stuff like a healing totem that regenerates nearby allies’ HP for a short amount of time, or a deployable turret that fires snowballs at passersby. These are at least more interesting than any of the base weapon options, but since they’re recharged by doing damage and scoring kills with your other weapons, definitely don’t solve the problems with combat.

What's Your Game of The Year 2024 So Far?

Pick a winner.

One of Snow Day’s only good ideas are upgradeable cards that you collect as you fight through levels. These grant passive benefits and allow you to cultivate a build throughout each stage, then disappear once that level is over, adding a minor roguelike element to the adventure. You might find interesting cards that augment your healing totem, enabling it to do things like revive downed teammates, allow you to do more damage to enemies near it, or increase its area of effect. Or you can chase riskier cards, like one that turns your otherwise weak wand attack into a high-DPS flame-spewing hose that lights you on fire too as a tradeoff. While combat never stops being a sloppy, disappointing slog, collecting cards to augment your playstyle, then strategically leveling them up to make those abilities more powerful, injects a modicum of variety into it.

The issue is that Snow Day isn’t a roguelike in any other way. You don’t have to start the entire campaign over when you die (you just start at the beginning of that level), and even on the hardest difficulty, none of the levels are so challenging that you won’t probably beat them on the first try. So there’s not a ton of pressure to create a really solid build since there’s little to optimize for. And even if you do manage to assemble a deck of cards you like, each level ends after an hour or less, at which point you lose them all just as soon as the build starts coming together and go back to zero. I would love to see a better game try this idea, because here it’s implemented in a way that only barely improves an overwhelmingly bad time.

Another example of a poorly thought-out card mechanic is the single random Bullshit Card you get at the beginning of each level that lets you activate a more powerful ability a limited number of times. These might let you call down a rain of fiery meteors for straight DPS or recover your health and make you invisible for a short period of time to escape danger, but none of them are all that interesting and they only have a minor impact on gameplay since you can usually only cast them two or three times per level. What’s worse, though, is that enemies get Bullshit Cards too, and they do things like replace the enemy’s normal weapons with high-damage laser swords, or give the bad guys protective bubble shields that make them significantly more beefy. In most cases, these cards serve only to significantly draw out the length of combat (including pausing gameplay whenever the enemy uses one to watch the animation play out) which is already pretty unbearable to begin with.

TieGuyTravis' Funniest Games List

This is especially true in the revolting horde mode (available as free DLC) in which you’re subjected to waves of enemies in an arena. This format really dials up all the worst parts of Snow Day and cuts out any hope of stumbling upon jokes or story along the way. In these nightmare scenarios, the enemies are given a whole bunch of Bullshit Cards and use them every couple of seconds, which constantly pauses the battle for the announcer to shout “bullshit” at you. It’s super cool and didn’t at all make me want to be buried alive.

Thanks to recent successes, we know exactly what a great South Park game looks like, and South Park: Snow Day! couldn’t be farther from it. I’m a huge fan of throwing out the rulebook to try something completely fresh, especially in this age of samey sequels and forever live-service games that increasingly play it safe, but this bold attempt at a new direction misses the mark so drastically I’m aghast at just how sideways things went. Whether it’s due to the thoroughly unenjoyable combat or the uncharacteristicly toothless and unfunny story, I can’t recommend anyone waste their time on this cooperative lost cause – even my fellow die-hard South Park fans.

More Reviews by Travis Northup

Ign recommends.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How German Atheists Made America Great Again

Taken together, two new books tell the century-long story of the revolutionary ideals that transformed the United States, and the counterrevolutionaries who fought them.

By S. C. Gwynne

S.C. Gwynne is the author of “Hymns of the Republic: The Story of the Final Year of the American Civil War.”

AN EMANCIPATION OF THE MIND: Radical Philosophy, the War Over Slavery, and the Refounding of America, by Matthew Stewart

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SECOND AMERICAN REPUBLIC: Reconstruction, 1860-1920, by Manisha Sinha

What was the Civil War about? In a word, slavery.

What actually caused the war, however, is a vastly more difficult idea. Try this explanation on for size: The driving force in American politics in the decades after the American Revolution was the rise of an arrogant, ruthless, parasitic oligarchy in the South, built on a foundation of Christian religion and a vision of permanent, God-ordained economic inequality.

Though much of the South was poor, this new aristocracy was vastly rich. Two-thirds of all estates in the United States worth more than $100,000 were in the hands of Southern white men. Their goal in seceding was to undo the basic ideals of the American republic and keep their wealth.

These counterrevolutionaries — for that is what they were — insisted that men were by divine design unequal , both racially and economically. To fight this notion and crush what amounted to an existential threat to democracy, the antislavery movement needed ideas as much as, ultimately, guns.

That’s the narrative that frames Matthew Stewart’s engaging and often surprising new book, “An Emancipation of the Mind. ” The title refers to the rise of new ways of thinking in the antislavery movement, what Stewart calls “the philosophical origins of America’s second revolution.”

The most significant ideas that Stewart traces are religious. From 1770 to 1860, religion in America underwent a massive shift. The number of churches exploded, North and South. Soon, most of these churches, using clear and manifold endorsements of slavery from the Bible (“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ”), were promoting and actively defending the slave republic.

As the antislavery crowd soon learned, it was impossible to spin “slavery is sin” arguments against biblical literalism. Ending slavery, Stewart says, “was hardly part of God’s plan.” This wasn’t just a Southern opinion: Three out of five clerics who published pro-slavery books and articles were educated at Northern divinity schools. Two decades before the outbreak of war, abolitionism was still a skulking pariah, a despised minority in the North as well as the South.

The abolitionists clearly needed help. Enter the Germans, specifically the freethinking Germans whose radical republican philosophy underpinned the failed European revolutions of 1848. “Freidenkers’’ like the theologian David Friedrich Strauss and the philosopher and anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach formulated ideas of the laws of nature and “nature’s God” that were at odds with the tenets of Christianity.

A large group of German intellectuals, fresh from the battles of 1848, arrived on American shores, joined the abolitionist movement and radicalized it. As he did in his 2014 book “Nature’s God,” which traced the way that the heretical philosophies of Spinoza and Lucretius influenced American founders like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, Stewart here argues convincingly that these philosophers found willing listeners in the persons of Abraham Lincoln, who kept Strauss and Feuerbach on his shelf; Frederick Douglass, who saw American Christianity as “the bulwark of slavery”; and the abolitionist firebrand Theodore Parker, whose lectures reached as many as 100,000 people a year in the 1850s.

Wasn’t much of this simply revolutionary atheism? Yes, it was, and it’s a bit of a shock to find out how close Lincoln and Douglass were to these ideas, though they paid lip service to more conventional Christian beliefs when translating them for the public.

The other big idea here — also with help from the Germans, especially Karl Marx (a great admirer of Lincoln, who, Stewart argues, liked him too) — has to do with the economics of slavery. “At the root of the ills of the slave system,” writes Stewart, “lies the extreme economic inequality that it inevitably produces — not just between races but among the white population.”

Between 1852 and 1862, Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote 487 articles for The New York Daily Tribune; Lincoln likely read them . They explained the war as “nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labor.”

After the war came Reconstruction. How do you deconstruct Reconstruction? Very, very carefully. It’s one of the toughest, most maddeningly complicated tasks in the writing of American history. That’s because Reconstruction — the word we use to denote the failed post-Civil War attempt to build a more inclusive country — unfolded in different ways in different states, on different timetables and with a wildly proliferating cast of players.

In her new book, “The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic,” the historian Manisha Sinha not only has taken on this vast subject, but has greatly expanded its definition, both temporally and spatially. Her Reconstruction embraces the Progressive Era, women’s suffrage, the final wars against Native Americans, immigration and even U.S. imperialism in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. She covers these difficult issues with remarkable skill and clarity.

In Sinha’s telling, the achievements of Reconstruction — we are in the latter 1860s and early 1870s here — are truly amazing. The federal decision to use the Army against recalcitrant ex-Confederates to secure rights for Black people resulted, she writes, in “a brief, shining historical moment when abolition democracy triumphed in much of the South and across the rest of the nation,” which “meant the inauguration of a progressive, interracial democracy.”

These years saw the passage of constitutional amendments that guaranteed citizenship, equal protection under the law and the vote for Black men. They also saw the rise of a powerful Freedmen’s Bureau, Black voting on a massive scale and the election of thousands of Black representatives to national, state and local office. More than 600 Black politicians were elected in the South to state legislatures alone.

Black Americans and freedpeople, Sinha reminds us, were themselves behind much of this change, a process she calls “grass-roots reconstruction.” As she laid out in her 2016 book “ The Slave’s Cause ,” and shows more briefly here, they documented atrocities and pushed to have them exposed, filed petitions, swore out affidavits at the risk of their lives and formed political organizations and lobbies.

But the Second American Republic would soon come crashing down, the victim of another violent counterrevolution whose principal weapons were racial terror and political assassination. In its place rose a New South, where class distinctions were shored up, where the government was by and for white men and where the belief that Black people were inferior to white people was firmly in place. Instead of economic freedom, Americans got debt peonage, stolen wages, criminalized self-employment and a convict leasing system. The great flowering of education during Reconstruction was trampled too as terrorists burned down more than 600 Black schools.

Sinha tells these stories well. She also pushes out beyond the conventionally defined subjects of Reconstruction. In her account, the ascendancy of Jim Crow and the conquest of the West, among other forms of repression, are profoundly connected, and not only because the government failed to protect Black liberty as well as Indigenous land rights and sovereignty. The Army that was raised to fight Southern counterrevolutionaries was redeployed in the West to subjugate Indians. The literacy requirements used to disenfranchise Black Americans in the South also proved effective in targeting immigrants and working-class people in the North.

Still, the ideals of the Second Republic did not completely wither on the vine. Sinha convincingly advances her vision of Reconstruction all the way forward to 1920, when the 19th Amendment granted women’s suffrage. That landmark event was inspired by the marquee equal rights amendments of the Reconstruction era, which, Sinha writes, “bequeathed a legacy of political activism and progressive constitutionalism” on the movement, a breath of air that gave America new life.

AN EMANCIPATION OF THE MIND : Radical Philosophy, the War Over Slavery, and the Refounding of America | By Matthew Stewart | Norton | 374 pp. | $32.50

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE SECOND AMERICAN REPUBLIC : Reconstruction, 1860-1920 | By Manisha Sinha | Liveright | 562 pp. | $39.99

Chicago Cubs | As Chicago Cubs determine how long ace Justin…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Cubs Insider
• Sign up for Cubs alerts
• Sign up for the Sports newsletter

Chicago Cubs

Chicago cubs | as chicago cubs determine how long ace justin steele will be sidelined, replacing his production will serve as a challenge.

ARLINGTON, Texas — Less than three hours before Chicago Cubs left-hander Justin Steele fell to the grass clutching his left hamstring on opening day at Globe Life Field, president of baseball operations Jed Hoyer was asked about the organization’s pitching depth.

After all, the depth, particularly among starting pitchers, appeared to be a team strength after getting through spring largely healthy.

“I think we have really good starters and good bullpen guys, but I thought some of the young guys took steps forward in the offseason, they looked good in spring training, so there’s no question we’ll need a lot of pitching,” Hoyer said. “And I think we’re in good shape that way organizationally, but one of the daunting aspects of starting this marathon is knowing this isn’t 20 years ago anymore, we’re not going to rely on five starters and a couple bullpen guys. It’s going to take everyone.”

Steele’s injury, however, is a big blow. Steele suffered a left hamstring strain as he fielded a bunt with two outs in the fifth inning of Thursday’s 4-3, 10-inning loss to the Texas Rangers. The Cubs won’t know the severity of the tear and how long he could be sidelined until they receive the results of Friday’s MRI. Steele is one of the most unreplaceable players on the roster. Coming off an All-Star season in which he was in contention for the National League Cy Young Award most the year, Steele was expected to build off that performance as the workhorse at the top of the rotation.

As much as injuries are part of the game, losing a pitcher of Steele’s caliber is a challenge to replace regardless of the organization’s depth. They survived a scare during his final spring start March 22 when Steele took a comebacker on the outside of his left knee against the first batter of the second inning.

Losing him on the first day of the season is its own brand of painful for the Cubs. Steele was rolling, too, before he felt his hamstring grab. He held the defending World Series champions to three hits and one run on a sacrifice fly with six strikeouts and one walk in 4 2/3 innings.

“It was typical Justin Steele,” manager Craig Counsell said. “They were super aggressive swinging, but he was still getting a ton of swing and miss, which is really impressive against that very good offensive team. That’s what you expect him to do, and he was delivering.”

For as well as Steele was pitching before the injury, his night likely would not have lasted much longer anyway. With the top of the Rangers order coming up and Steele at 67 pitches with two outs in the fifth, Counsell had Yency Almonte and Julian Merryweather up in the bullpen. Counsell said if the Rangers had gotten a hit to take the lead, “maybe we went to something different there.” Josh Jung, No. 3 in the order, had given Steele two tough at-bats, forcing him to throw a combined 17 pitches and leading Counsell to also consider going to the bullpen when his spot came up next.

Counsell had liked how the bullpen was lining up before Steele’s premature departure quickly forced an adjustment. He commended Mark Leiter Jr. for getting them five outs to get the back of the pen realigned for the late innings and liked the soft contact he saw from Hèctor Neris in the eighth. Unfortunately for the Cubs, Adbert Alzolay’s 2-2 slider caught enough of the inside of the plate for lefty pinch hitter Travis Jankowski to slug it for a tying home run in the ninth.

Photos: Opening day for Chicago Cubs at Globe Life Field

“I thought the bullpen did a really nice job, a bunch of guys filled the roles,” Counsell said.

The Cubs spent the Friday off day regrouping and laying out a plan on how to cover Steele’s spot in the rotation for however long he is out. With days off Thursday and April 11, they could get creative in calling up a reliever for short-term support before bringing up a starter from Triple-A Iowa — right-handers Hayden Wesneski and Ben Brown are on the 40-man roster.

Every season endures challenges. The Cubs are taking on a potentially big one after Day 1.

“The guys that do this for a long time and are considered the top rotation starters, it’s not a one-time thing,” Hoyer said. “I thought he looked really good this spring minus the fielding and I think he’s ready to go and have a good year.”

More in Chicago Cubs

Chicago Cubs | Chicago Cubs open the 2024 season holding their breath as pitcher Justin Steele exits a strong start with an injury

MLB | Column: Will offseason plans pan out for the Cubs and White Sox? Check back in October.

Chicago Cubs | How 6 weeks in Arizona laid the foundation for manager Craig Counsell and the Chicago Cubs

Trending nationally.

• Continuing Coverage: Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore
• Some of Florida’s sickest kids are losing Medicaid coverage on Easter Sunday
• Skiboky Stora, accused of attacking NYC TikToker, goes on unhinged rant in court
• White-collar crimes: Sam Bankman-Fried’s sentence is double Elizabeth Holmes’
• Conjoined twin, former TLC star Abby Hensel now married to Army veteran

How a cargo ship took down Baltimore’s Key Bridge

To bridge experts, the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge after being hit by a heavy cargo ship was as inevitable as it was devastating.

When a vessel as heavy as the Singapore-flagged Dali crashes with such force into one of the span’s supercolumns, or piers, the result is the type of catastrophic, and heartbreaking, chain reaction that took place early Tuesday.

“If the column is destroyed, basically the structure will fall down,” said Dan Frangopol, a bridge engineering and risk professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who is president of the International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety. “It’s not possible to redistribute the loads. It was not designed for these things.”

No bridge pier could withstand being hit by a ship the size of the Dali, said Benjamin W. Schafer, a professor of civil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins University.

“These container ships are so huge,” Schafer said. “That main span has two supports. You can’t take one away.” He called the accident “a huge infrastructure failure,” but not because of the bridge collapse; he said the shipping industry needs systems to keep a ship on track when it loses power, as the Dali did before the collision.

The bridge itself, which carried more than 30,000 vehicles daily, appeared to be structurally sound. Its condition was rated fair, according to data in the 2023 National Bridge Inventory maintained by the Federal Highway Administration. Maryland state officials said they were focused on search-and-rescue operations and did not provide later inspection data. National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said excavating detailed inspection history information — and what was done in response to any earlier findings — will be a cumbersome and protracted part of the agency’s investigation.

But bridge safety and engineering experts are emphasizing a separate issue: protective barriers.

When the span opened to traffic in 1977, many ships were smaller and the standards for protecting bridges against them were lower, they said.

A few years later, a Liberian cargo ship crashed into a bridge in Florida , sending a Greyhound bus, a pickup truck and six cars into the Tampa Bay and killing 35 people, according to the NTSB. That deadly 1980 collision helped lead to the adoption of stronger national standards for bridges, including protection from errant ships, in the years that followed, safety experts said.

Sherif El-Tawil, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at University of Michigan with expertise in bridges, said if the Key Bridge had been built after those updated standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials were put in place, the span could still be standing.

“I believe it would have survived,” El-Tawil said.

Maryland officials did not answer questions Tuesday about what protective devices were in place near the bridge and whether they were sufficient to withstand this type of collision.

Two examples of protective measures that did not appear to have been in place, El-Tawil said, were large fenders designed to direct marine traffic away from the bridge supports and an island built around the pier.

Some states are building these kinds of protection systems around vital bridges. Last year, officials from a joint New Jersey and Delaware bridge authority announced work on eight 80-foot-wide, stone-filled cylinders designed to protect the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The existing protection for the bridge tower piers dates to 1951. “Today’s tankers and ships are bigger and faster than those of the 1950s and 1960s,” the officials said in announcing the nearly $93 million project.

State departments of transportation “are aware of the shortcomings of these bridges,” said Roberto T. Leon, a bridge and structural engineering professor at Virginia Tech. “It’s not that they don’t know. It’s a matter of prioritizing the repairs. It is a very expensive proposition to protect a bridge.”

Ian Firth, a British structural engineer and bridge designer, said he was “not surprised” at how quickly the bridge came down after it was hit. He noted that the support structure that was struck, which would have been made of reinforced concrete, was one of two main supports responsible for doing “all the work” to hold up the bridge.

He said the ship appeared to have strayed to one side before striking the bridge.

The bridge collapse, like other calamities, is probably the result of overlapping low-probability failures, said Edward Tenner, a historian and expert on disasters — akin to what happens when, by chance, the holes in a stack of Swiss cheese slices line up perfectly.

“This might have been a case where there were just an unlikely series of failures,” said Tenner, author of “Why Things Bite Back,” a book about technology and its unanticipated consequences. But he added, “I suspect there was something about the equipment of a huge ship like that, given the potential for damage like this, there should have been more redundancy. There shouldn’t have been one point of failure that could lead to a catastrophe.”

Speaking Tuesday afternoon in Baltimore, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called the accident “a unique circumstance,” adding, “I do not know of a bridge that has been constructed to withstand a direct impact from a vessel of this size.”

The ship was towed into the Patapsco River initially, but the tugboats did not accompany the ship all the way to the bridge, said John Konrad, a retired ship captain who runs the gCaptain maritime news website and co-authored a book on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill .

“The safe thing to do is keep the tugs,” Konrad said. “Moving forward, I think that’s going to happen. The Coast Guard is going to say you’ve got to keep the tugs tied up until you pass the bridge.”

In video imagery, the ship can be seen losing electrical power, then briefly regaining it before going completely dark. The ship then veers to the right, directly toward the bridge’s structural support.

The rudder may have gotten stuck in a position that caused the ship to turn, said a senior retired maritime official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity while waiting for more details on the incident. It’s also possible that an incoming tide could have been a factor, he said.

“Obviously, they could not control the ship. They could not stop the ship,” he said.

A deficiency in the Dali’s systems was discovered when the ship was inspected in June, records show. Inspectors at the port of San Antonio, Chile, discovered a problem categorized as relating to “propulsion and auxiliary machinery,” according to the Tokyo MOU, an intergovernmental shipping regulator in the Asia-Pacific region. The issue was classified in the subcategory of “Gauges, thermometers, etc,” but no additional details of the deficiency were provided. The problem was not serious enough to warrant detaining the ship, according to the records.

After a follow-up inspection later the same day, the Dali was found to have no outstanding deficiencies, the records show, indicating that the problem was addressed.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said at a news conference Tuesday that the Dali lost power and issued an emergency call for help shortly before the freighter crashed into the bridge. The “mayday” distress call allowed officials to halt vehicle traffic headed over the bridge and saved lives, Moore said.

Erin Cox, Tom Jackman, Jon Swaine, Joyce Lee and Mark Johnson contributed to this report.

An earlier version of this article misstated the title of Edward Tenner's book. It is "Why Things Bite Back." This version has been corrected.

Baltimore bridge collapse

How it happened: Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed after being hit by a cargo ship . The container ship lost power shortly before hitting the bridge, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said. Video shows the bridge collapse in under 40 seconds.

Victims: Divers have recovered the bodies of two construction workers , officials said. They were fathers, husbands and hard workers . A mayday call from the ship prompted first responders to shut down traffic on the four-lane bridge, saving lives.

Economic impact: The collapse of the bridge severed ocean links to the Port of Baltimore, which provides about 20,000 jobs to the area . See how the collapse will disrupt the supply of cars, coal and other goods .

Rebuilding: The bridge, built in the 1970s , will probably take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild , experts said.

Ohio mother who left toddler alone when she went on vacation is sentenced in child’s murder

An Ohio woman whose toddler died after she left her alone for more than a week while she went on vacation was sentenced to life in prison without parole Monday, the Cuyahoga County prosecutor said.

Kristel Candelario, 32, pleaded guilty last month t o aggravated murder and endangering children in connection with the death of her 16-month-old daughter, Jailyn, last year.

Candelario left for vacation June 6 and left Jailyn alone. She visited Detroit and Puerto Rico, the prosecutor’s office said.

When she returned on June 16, she found Jailyn dead and called police, authorities said.

Jailyn died of starvation and severe dehydration due to pediatric neglect, Dr. Elizabeth Mooney, the deputy Cuyahoga County medical examiner, said in court Monday. The manner was ruled homicide.

The child was extremely dehydrated and emaciated, weighing 13 pounds, 7 pounds less than in her last doctor's visit less than two months before, Mooney said.

Mooney, who conducted the autopsy, called Jailyn's death "one of the most tragic and unfortunate cases I’ve had in my career thus far." She said the child could have suffered for possibly a week.

In a statement Monday, prosecutor Michael C. O’Malley called Jailyn “a beautiful baby girl who was taken from this world due to her mother’s unimaginable selfishness.”

Candelario told the court Monday that “every day I ask forgiveness from God and from my daughter Jailyn.”

She also asked forgiveness from her other daughter and from her parents.

Candelario’s attorney, Derek Smith, said that no one was trying to excuse her behavior but that Candelario was struggling emotionally and was overwhelmed as a single mother of two children.

Candelario had tried to harm herself earlier in 2023 and she had been placed on antidepressants, which she stopped taking without tapering down in dosage as required, which can cause side effects, Smith told the court. Candelario was "not thinking clearly," he said.

“I am not trying to justify my actions, but nobody knew how much I was suffering and what I was going through,” Candelario said through an interpreter.

Assistant Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Anna Faraglia told the court Monday that Candelario had left Jailyn alone for two days immediately before she left on vacation.

"The thought of this child dying every day while she's having fun — humanity can't stomach that," Faraglia said. "And those are the actions that need to be punished. She abandoned her daughter and left her for dead."

In sentencing Candelario, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Brendan Sheehan noted that the police and the medical professionals involved called it one of the most horrific cases they’d ever seen.

“It stunned people across this world, because it defies one of the basic human responsibilities,” Sheehan said. He called it “the ultimate act of betrayal.” 

Phil Helsel is a reporter for NBC News.