Lab 5: Long paper evaluation.
Use one of the papers you evaluated in your short paper evaluation (or any paper you will cite for your review paper) and write a full critique. This should include the information from the short evaluation, but be in a longer (~1 page) format, and should be a single readable piece that flows well.
At the top, include the citation to the paper.
Then, remember the hourglass format. Start broad, then get more specific, then wrap up by connecting the specifics back to the broad ideas.
Steps (you can start by doing these independently, but they should be put together into a single coherent narrative)
1: To start, explain in a sentence or two why the general topic is important.
2: Explain in a sentence or two why the specific topic is important.
3: Explain what question in this topic the study addressed.
4: Explain why this question is important
5: Explain how the study addressed the question (methods)
6: Explain how they authors interpreted the results.
7: Then, bring the interpretation back to #2 how does that interpretation fit into whats important about the specific topic?
8: Relate 6 and 7 to 1: What insight does this study give to the general topic?
9: Path forward. Explain what the authors viewed as the next steps.
10: Give your opinion on the authors interpretation of the results and where the topic should go.
11: Now, put it all together and then EDIT. First, remove as much extra wording as you can without losing meaning. Compress extra bits into shorter, simpler sentences and wording.
12: Read back through the paragraph for FLOW. Does each sentence logically follow the next? If not, change or add to the sentences so the logic flows.
13: Check PARAGRAPH STRUCTURE. Is the first sentence of each paragraph a topic sentence, and does the paragraph stay on that topic? Does the last sentence wrap up the paragraph and introduce the next?