What is the paper about (scope)?

Buy ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee

Note: Every paper is crafted by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.

Hi I want you to write me Two critiques from the 2 small article separately which I already attached in other file and please review the guideline before writing the critique. Both critique are sperate to each other and have same guidelines. Which means you have to write 2 papers of 400 to 500 words each.

The name of 2 articles are:

1. “CONTAINERIZATION ON THE GREAT LAKES: WHY IT DECLINED”
2. “MEASURING COMMODITY FLOWS IN CANADA: OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS”

Guidelines for Critiques:

1. Length is minimum 400 words, maximum 550 words plus a cover page.

2. All text must be double-spaced.

3. All margins must be 1 inch (2.5 cm).

4. Font size should be 12.

5. Include name of student on top of the first page

6. Attempt to refer other additional paper in your critique ( To support your critique )

The content of the critiques can be divided roughly into four parts: a brief synopsis of the paper,

comments on the strengths of the paper, comments on the weaknesses that could be improved,

and a section in which you outline key findings or issues that you have learned from the paper.

Abstract

An abstract is an encapsulation of the paper:

• What is the paper about (scope)?
• Did they identify a problem (economic, logistical, etc.)
• What did the author(s) want to do (objectives)?
• How did they go about doing it (methodology)?
• What evidence did they use in the analysis?
• What did they find (conclusion)?

Strengths

Here are some questions you can consider as you prepare the critique of the paper:

1. Is the article well written and easily understood with clear objectives and reasonable conclusions?
2. Does the author(s) address a tangible problem in society and provide an insightful discussion?
3. Does the author(s) present convincing data and other evidence to support their position?
4. Is the methodology technically sound and appropriate for the data collected?
5. Does the author(s) make a useful contribution to the knowledge of transportation and could it have long term value?
6. Does the author(s) make good use of the diagrams, figures or data to support their arguments? Are any missing, that should be there?
7. Do the conclusions flow from the material presented in the paper?
8. How could the paper be made even stronger?

Weaknesses

Here are some questions you can consider as you prepare the critique of the paper:

1. Is the article well written and easily understood with clear objectives and reasonable conclusions?
2. Does the author(s) address a tangible problem in society and provide an insightful discussion?
3. Does the author(s) present convincing data and other evidence to support their position?
4. Is the methodology technically sound and appropriate for the data collected?
5. Does the author(s) make a useful contribution to the knowledge of transportation and could it have long term value?
6. Does the author(s) make good use of the diagrams, figures or data to support their arguments? Are any missing, that should be there?
7. Do the conclusions flow from the material presented in the paper?
8. How would you recommend that the author(s) could improve the paper?

What did you learn?

This is your opportunity to assess the intrinsic value of the paper from your own perspective.

What surprised you most?

Did anything challenge your prior impressions?

Did you learn anything about organizing a paper, or what to avoid?

Are you convinced by the analysis, or skeptical of its validity?