A critical article review should summarize and evaluate the article.
A critical article review involves three main parts: identifying the main points, summarizing those points and then evaluating them. Your evaluation of the article should be based on facts and not on your own personal views of the author or the subject. You should also make sure any criticisms of the article are not based on a misunderstanding of the topic.
Instructions
1. Read the article and get acquainted with what the article promises. In order to assess this information, you should carefully read the summary on the article, if any, and its introduction. Write down what you think you should learn from the article before you move on to reading the body. Take notes after reading the article and compare those notes to those that you took before you read the article. Did you learn what you thought you would? What were your overall reactions to the article?
2. Evaluate the overall benefit of the article to its readers. How does this article compare to other things you have read on the topic? Does this article add anything new or have a unique perspective? Think about how effectively the author conveyed any main points or arguments. If it is trying to convince the reader of something, did it do its job? Did you understand the message and would the average reader understand, too? What were the article's strong points? Are there are weak points that stood out to you?
3. Begin your review by introducing the article, its author, its topic and its main objectives. Make sure any important points are addressed, like any special qualifications or education the author has in relation to the subject. Explain your own position as a reviewer. What do you expect to gain from reading the article? Do you have any special knowledge on the topic? You can construct the body of your review in one of two ways: by summarizing the content of the article one point at a time -- thoroughly summarizing the point and your evaluation of it -- or by summarizing all the points at once, before you delve into your own evaluation of those points. Be sure to mention any evidence that is presented to support the validity of each point.
4. Finish the review with a conclusion of your evaluation. Is any part of the article presented in a prejudicial way, unsupported by evidence or appear to be the based on misunderstood concepts? What were the weakest and strongest parts of the article? What are your overall critical evaluations of the article? What are your final conclusions about the article, its author and its message? Why and how did you come to these conclusions?
Tags: What were, your evaluation, article author, article compare, article review, article What, article What your