EAPP | Article Critique

Critique

• provides a critical assessment of the main points of a text, and whether or not these are supported properly with reasonable arguments and facts

• ranges from 250-750 words

• one's evaluation, analysis, or critical assessments of a text with sufficient arguments to backed up one's claims

• not a summary but demonstrates one's evaluation of a text with sufficient arguments to backed up one's claims

Things to Remember While Reading an Article

• Author’s Main Point or Argument

• Author’s Purpose

• Intended Audience

• Main Arguments

• Evidence

Things to Remember for a Deeper Analysis

• Are arguments presented in a logical way and do they support or strengthen the main point?

• Is the text written in an organized manner?

• Are the facts sufficient, updated, accurate? What kind of materials did author use?

• What are the arguments used to support the main point?

• What evidence are used to support the claims?

• Does the text target its intended audience?

Article Critique’s Purpose

• identify its background and purpose

• engages in the article’s discussion

• evaluate the thesis’ strengths and weaknesses

• provides reaction on the article’s content

• offers personal opinion on the article

Tips in Writing an Article Critique

• Examine the used research methods

• Assess the accuracy of the facts and evidence

• Evaluate the implied assumptions of the article

• Eliminate trivia and redundancies in the summary

• Compare the article to related texts

• Think about the possible effects of the main idea of the article to society

• Use generic terms for technical ones

Structure of an Article Critique

1. Introduction

2. Summary

Introduction

Around 5% of the paper and consists of:

• Title of the book/article /work

• Writer's name

• Thesis statement

Summary

Around 10% of the paper and consists of:

• Objective or purpose

• Methods used (if applicable)

• Major findings, claims, ideas, or messages

Review/Critique

Around 75% of the paper and consists of:

• Appropriateness of methodology to support the arguments (for books and articles) or appropriateness of mode of presentation (other works)

• Theoretical soundness, coherence of ideas

• Sufficiency and soundness of explanation in relation to other available information and experts

• Other perspectives in explaining the concepts and ideas

Questions to Ask While Writing the Technique

• Does the writer explicitly state his/her thesis statement?

• What are the assumptions (i.e., a scientific/logical/literary explanation without evidence) mentioned in the work? Are they explicitly discussed?

• What are the contributions of the work to the field where it belongs?

• What problems and issues are discussed or presented in the work?

• What kinds of information (e.g., observation, survey, statistics, historical accounts) are presented in the work? How are they used to support the arguments or thesis?

• Are there other ways of supporting the arguments or thesis aside from the information used in the work? Is the author or creator silent about these alternative ways of explanation?

Conclusion

Around 10% of the paper and consists of:

• Overall impression of the work

• Scholarly or literary value of the reviewed article, book, or work

• Benefits for the intended audience or field suggestion for future direction of research