This is for master degree level. Full referencing required. Must be free from plagiarism 100%.
you must do a thorough research about information.
dont over paraphase.
CRITICAL ARTICLE REVIEW
Please consider how you will approach each of the following required elements. Think of the most appropriate title for this critical article review.

1. INTRODUCTION

The review should begin with a complete citation for the article, for example: Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of criticism: Four Essays, Princeton UP, 1957. 200pp.
The review itself usually begins with an introduction that’s lets your readers know what the review will say.

The first paragraph should include the authors and title so your readers don’t have to look up to find this information.

You should also include a very brief overview of the contents of the article, the purpose of the article.

Background information that helps place the article in context is also very essential.

Don’t over paraphrase.

Give a brief summary of the author’s article content so the reader knows what the article review is about, the review should primarily analyze and evaluate rather than summarize.

Your review should examine how the author has constructed the main points of the article and why he has chosen to do it in this way.

What are the author’s main points? You should state this in the introduction

• What is the author trying to achieve in writing the article (i.e., overall purpose and specific objectives)?
• How is the paper organized or what key issues does the author address?
• What basic ideas, facts, or arguments does the author present and how are they used to support the goal(s) of the paper?
• What does the author conclude about the topic under investigation (e.g., argumentatively or empirically)?

• Background about the issue and content.

2. DEVELOPMENT ( ARTICLES MAIN ARGUMENTS)

• Is the author’s purpose clearly set out and integrated throughout the paper?

• What is your perception of the organization of the paper, that is, the flow of ideas, information, and conclusions?

• Are the conclusions or implications informative, thought-provoking ?
• The strengths and weakness of the articles idea.
Note: It is important to review other relevant literature in order to (a) better understand the issue(s) under consideration and (b) gain greater insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.

• What is your overall assessment of the paper and its contributions to the field of study?
• How does the author’s work compare to other research or writing on the topic?
• What other aspects of the issue require further attention, especially as an extension of the ideas presented in paper under review?
What kind of evidence does the author use to prove his or her points?
Is the evidence convincing? Why or why not?
Does the author support his or her points adequately?
How does this article relate to other articles on the same topic?
Is the article unique?
Does it add new information?
What groups of readers if any would find this article most useful?
Does the author have the necessary expertise to write this article?
What credentials or background does the author have that qualifies him or her to write this article?
Has the author written other articles on this topic?
Do authors in this field consider this author to be an expert?
What are the most appropriate criteria by which to judge the article?
How successful do you think the author was in carrying out the overall purpose of the article?

your evaluation of the article,
Discuss your criteria for judging the article.
How well the article achieved its goal
What possibilities are suggested by the article?
What the article left out? What was missing?
How the article compares to others on the subject?
What specific points are not convincing?

3. CONCLUSION
in this part you have to write your own contribution to the topic.

It’s important to carefully distinguish your views from the authors, so that you don’t confuse your reader.