These are the responses I got from my classmates, so I think I need to revise my paper for the strengths part. Also, for the first question, please add these information into the summary part.
Does the critique discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the article in enough detail? The critique discusses all weaknesses.
Does the critique discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the article in enough detail? No, the critique does not discuss the strengths of the article in enough detail.
Also, there are the original question for peer review, I guess it will help. Like the professor asked for two points for each strengths and weaknesses part. The red parts are question that I found need to revise, if you could find more, that will be great. Thank you so much.
1. Does the summary clearly introduce the writer, article title and publication?
2. How effectively does the summary convey the central issue / problem that the author addresses and explain how the author feels about the issue?
3. How successfully does the summary help the reader understand the key points of the argument & omit any unnecessary information?
4. Are signal phrases (Links to an external site.) ("Smith shows," "the author suggests," etc.) used to make an obvious distinction between information presented in the article and the writer's ideas?
5. Are descriptive verbs ("Jones indicates" rather than "Jones is saying that") used to describe the actions of the text and provide strength and concision?
6. Does the summary incorporate transitions ("Additionally," "Moreover," "As a result," "Conversely," "Next," etc.) to help guide the reader through the progression of ideas?
7. Is the summary free from grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors?
8. How would you characterize the tone of the summary? Is it neutral and objective?
9. Does the summary use present tense?
10. Is the summary clearly organized?
11. How closely does the summary follow APA citation and documentation style?
The Critique
12. Is your peer's claim clearly expressed? Is it "debatable" and stated as an assertion?
13. Does the claim offer a meaningful contribution to the discussion at hand? How might the claim be improved?
14. Are convincing points (or "reasons") presented immediately following the claim?
15. Does your peer provide at least two pieces of evidence to support each point?
16. Is each example analyzed in sufficient depth? Does your peer clearly explain how each piece of evidence relates to the claim?
17. Are transitions used appropriately? Where could the addition of a transitional device help to connect ideas and improve flow?
18. Is the paper written in at least a semi-formal style?
19. How effectively is APA (formatting and citation) used in the paper?
20. Does the critique discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the article in enough detail?
21. What 3 changes could significantly improve the readability and fluidity of the paper?
22. What 3 changes could significantly improve the effectiveness of your peer's argument?
Attachment:- Critical Analysis.rar