article review paper example

article review paper example

How to Write an Effective Article Review

1. Introduction

The introduction of the article review is the most essential part. This is because the introduction gives the reader a rough idea of what will be discussed and the main point of this article. A good introduction should not be more than two paragraphs. In the introductory part, we should give the title of the article that we want to review, the author’s name, and a little about the author. Then, we should give the author’s main point of his article and whether he succeeded or not in delivering what he wants to the reader. In this part also, we can give our thesis statement from reviewing the entire article, becoming a guideline for what we will discuss in the body later. Next, we should also address what the article is about and what the author wants to discuss with the reader. Making the reader interested and curious about the article is the main point here. The last question that we should answer in the introduction is whether the author succeeded in delivering all the messages to the reader or not. This introduction of the article makes the reader curious to read the whole article. Similar to the reviewed article, by giving this kind of introduction, the reader should easily catch the idea of the article that will be reviewed. So, the quality of the introduction that we make really affects the entire article that will be reviewed.

2. Understanding the Article

It is important to understand the article in order to write an effective review. Before you begin reading, take note of the authors and their institutional affiliations. An author’s institutional affiliation can reveal a lot about the article – including potential biases, political beliefs, religious beliefs, or cultural influences. It is also important to consider the author’s reputation in interpreting the article. Known researchers in the field may be more likely to have articles published in academic journals or edited books, so judging an article’s content as reliable may not require as thorough a reading as it would for a lesser-known author. Finally, you should consider whether the author is presenting partial information, leaving notable information, or presenting a skewed interpretation of an event or issue. This will affect the way you read the article, and hence the way you write your review. After you gather this preliminary information, read the article. As you read the first time, you should skim through and take note of the topic of the article, the target audience, and the possible impact of the article. Then read the article again taking note of the major points and subpoints. It may be helpful to write a short summary or outline of the article to help you understand it. I often find that a summary is useful after expanding on ideas in the review, to ensure that I am accurately reflecting the author’s points. Now is the time to make a distinction between a positive or negative review of the article. The most important aspect in writing a review is that it is a serious analysis, and that it is an analysis that is well-informed. In a review that is not an analysis, the author tells the reader about the article, but does not explain whether the author of the review has actually read the article. Similarly many reviews that are an analysis but are not well informed, do not help the reader understand the content of the article, and do not convey an accurate interpretation of the article. The best reviews are those that provide both an analysis and an informed interpretation of the article. An informed interpretation is no more than an evaluation of the article based on the information provided in the review, and supported by the reviewer’s reason and understanding of the topic. This must further be a critical evaluation provided in a scholarly manner. High quality reviews are those that can be termed as new concepts or interpretations of the article. Finally the review should be written with a style and a formation representing the analysis, evaluation and interpretation of the article. High quality reviews often have a style of writing that merges an aspect of informative listing of the article’s content, with a more complex and original written articulation. The review should be concise and complete, a long winded review does not guarantee a better evaluation; it is simply a demonstration of the reviewer’s lack of ability to edit their work. High quality reviews will achieve the above criteria and also provide an accurate perspective of the article in a relatively short review. Now to consider how we actually go about writing the review…

3. Analyzing the Article’s Strengths and Weaknesses

The most important part of critiquing an article is stating an opinion of the article. You would use the above evidence to give a rating for the article. This could be a thumbs up or down, stars, etc. Just about every article is always up for improvement, and any article critique example would be focusing on the negative aspects to show the need for improvement. So if you were to write an article critique on this article, you could make a clear indication that the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses when you mention them. An opinion with a rating would be summarizing the critique.

Another easy task is to identify the weaknesses of an article, as there may only be a couple, yet these are always easier to find than strengths. With the strengths in mind, look for things that are not beneficial for the article. This could be that it was not enjoyable or persuasive, maybe it was not comprehensive enough, or it simply was not methodical. A lot of articles have no conclusion at all. Basically, anything that is not of benefit to the article is a weakness. As with strengths, it is important to cite evidence for weaknesses. A good article critique will contain a good mix of strengths and weaknesses.

When identifying the strengths of the article, you should always have the question in mind: is this beneficial or detrimental to the article? Look for the merits in the article, such as being innovative, methodical, comprehensive, persuasive, and enjoyable. In identifying the strengths of the article under these headings, it makes the task a lot easier. If the article was good to read and well-structured, often this is a clear indication of the strengths of the article. An important aspect of identifying the strengths is conveying this by citing evidence from the article.

This section helps you to identify the article’s strengths and weaknesses by analyzing it critically. After you have read the article and answered the questions in the previous section, you should have a good understanding of the article itself. If this is the case, identifying the article’s strengths and weaknesses should be a simple task.

4. Providing a Critical Evaluation

The critical evaluation section is the most important part of an article review. In this section, specific are the positive and negative aspects of the article, so you must tell about what are the things that are not good and what are the things good in the article reviewed. For example, a relevant article with inconclusive results would be considered not good. There were no theoretical or methodology errors, so it means that the good aspects of this article are at the result, and the only way to improve is by obtaining the conclusive result. Then the most important thing is to compare your article with the other one. This is a good way to tell the author about what position their article is right now. This can be a spirit for the author to fix some errors and improve their article. Remember, do not give your own opinion in the first priority. It must be based on the fact and logic. For the custom article, usually use “the first thing to improve your article is……” Don’t use that format because it seems like you have authority to tell the author what they must do with their article. Use a more polite way and be more suggestive. It will be better if you prepare the conclusion of the author’s article by preparing it yourself. For the author of the article, they should be open to suggestions and criticism from others. It can be used to fix some errors and improve the article, and also increase the ability of the author itself.

5. Conclusion

In this section, revisit the key issues that were the focus of your critical review and the main issues relevant to the topic of the article. The purpose here is to place your own review within the broader context of other writings on your subject. The ideal way to synthesize studies is to interpret patterns as revealed by the literature as a whole and that can be done in this section. First, revisit your original thesis, confirm whether you still believe it to be the true one and if so, explain how and why. Then, point out the significance of your thesis and whether it still holds true. This should be followed by the conclusions that you have drawn as a result of your critical analysis. Suggest practical implications and also recommend specific concrete actions. Try to avoid making subjective statements without evidence to back them up. This should lead to a new paragraph on the limitations of the study. Every piece of research is open to alternative interpretations and yours is no exception. What are the possible competing theories and alternative interpretations? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your point of view, and how have you weaved this into the review? Finally, no research is perfect and it’s unlikely that further studies will not have some influence on your own interpretations. Therefore, identify in which areas the research fell short and suggest how it could be improved.