how to critique the methodology of an article

How to Write an Article Critique Step-by-Step

Table of contents

• 1 What is an Article Critique Writing?
• 2 How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps
• 3 Article Critique Outline
• 4 Article Critique Formatting
• 5 How to Write a Journal Article Critique
• 6 How to Write a Research Article Critique
• 7 Research Methods in Article Critique Writing
• 8 Tips for writing an Article Critique

Do you know how to critique an article? If not, don’t worry – this guide will walk you through the writing process step-by-step. First, we’ll discuss what a research article critique is and its importance. Then, we’ll outline the key points to consider when critiquing a scientific article. Finally, we’ll provide a step-by-step guide on how to write an article critique including introduction, body and summary. Read more to get the main idea of crafting a critique paper.

What is an Article Critique Writing?

An article critique is a formal analysis and evaluation of a piece of writing. It is often written in response to a particular text but can also be a response to a book, a movie, or any other form of writing. There are many different types of review articles . Before writing an article critique, you should have an idea about each of them.

To start writing a good critique, you must first read the article thoroughly and examine and make sure you understand the article’s purpose. Then, you should outline the article’s key points and discuss how well they are presented. Next, you should offer your comments and opinions on the article, discussing whether you agree or disagree with the author’s points and subject. Finally, concluding your critique with a brief summary of your thoughts on the article would be best. Ensure that the general audience understands your perspective on the piece.

How to Critique an Article: The Main Steps

If you are wondering “what is included in an article critique,” the answer is:

An article critique typically includes the following:

• A brief summary of the article .
• A critical evaluation of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.
• A conclusion.

When critiquing an article, it is essential to critically read the piece and consider the author’s purpose and research strategies that the author chose. Next, provide a brief summary of the text, highlighting the author’s main points and ideas. Critique an article using formal language and relevant literature in the body paragraphs. Finally, describe the thesis statement, main idea, and author’s interpretations in your language using specific examples from the article. It is also vital to discuss the statistical methods used and whether they are appropriate for the research question. Make notes of the points you think need to be discussed, and also do a literature review from where the author ground their research. Offer your perspective on the article and whether it is well-written. Finally, provide background information on the topic if necessary.

When you are reading an article, it is vital to take notes and critique the text to understand it fully and to be able to use the information in it. Here are the main steps for critiquing an article:

• Read the piece thoroughly, taking notes as you go. Ensure you understand the main points and the author’s argument.
• Take a look at the author’s perspective. Is it powerful? Does it back up the author’s point of view?
• Carefully examine the article’s tone. Is it biased? Are you being persuaded by the author in any way?
• Look at the structure. Is it well organized? Does it make sense?
• Consider the writing style. Is it clear? Is it well-written?
• Evaluate the sources the author uses. Are they credible?
• Think about your own opinion. With what do you concur or disagree? Why?

Article Critique Outline

When assigned an article critique, your instructor asks you to read and analyze it and provide feedback. A specific format is typically followed when writing an article critique.

An article critique usually has three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

• The introduction of your article critique should have a summary and key points.
• The critique’s main body should thoroughly evaluate the piece, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and state your ideas and opinions with supporting evidence.
• The conclusion should restate your research and describe your opinion.

You should provide your analysis rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with the author. When writing an article review , it is essential to be objective and critical. Describe your perspective on the subject and create an article review summary. Be sure to use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, write it in the third person, and cite your sources.

Article Critique Formatting

When writing an article critique, you should follow a few formatting guidelines. The importance of using a proper format is to make your review clear and easy to read.

Make sure to use double spacing throughout your critique. It will make it easy to understand and read for your instructor.

Indent each new paragraph. It will help to separate your critique into different sections visually.

Use headings to organize your critique. Your introduction, body, and conclusion should stand out. It will make it easy for your instructor to follow your thoughts.

Use standard fonts, such as Times New Roman or Arial. It will make your critique easy to read.

Use 12-point font size. It will ensure that your critique is easy to read.

How to Write a Journal Article Critique

When critiquing a journal article, there are a few key points to keep in mind:

• Good critiques should be objective, meaning that the author’s ideas and arguments should be evaluated without personal bias.
• Critiques should be critical, meaning that all aspects of the article should be examined, including the author’s introduction, main ideas, and discussion.
• Critiques should be informative, providing the reader with a clear understanding of the article’s strengths and weaknesses.

When critiquing a research article, evaluating the author’s argument and the evidence they present is important. The author should state their thesis or the main point in the introductory paragraph. You should explain the article’s main ideas and evaluate the evidence critically. In the discussion section, the author should explain the implications of their findings and suggest future research.

It is also essential to keep a critical eye when reading scientific articles. In order to be credible, the scientific article must be based on evidence and previous literature. The author’s argument should be well-supported by data and logical reasoning.

How to Write a Research Article Critique

When you are assigned a research article, the first thing you need to do is read the piece carefully. Make sure you understand the subject matter and the author’s chosen approach. Next, you need to assess the importance of the author’s work. What are the key findings, and how do they contribute to the field of research?

Finally, you need to provide a critical point-by-point analysis of the article. This should include discussing the research questions, the main findings, and the overall impression of the scientific piece. In conclusion, you should state whether the text is good or bad. Read more to get an idea about curating a research article critique. But if you are not confident, you can ask “ write my papers ” and hire a professional to craft a critique paper for you. Explore your options online and get high-quality work quickly.

However, test yourself and use the following tips to write a research article critique that is clear, concise, and properly formatted.

• Take notes while you read the text in its entirety. Right down each point you agree and disagree with.
• Write a thesis statement that concisely and clearly outlines the main points.
• Write a paragraph that introduces the article and provides context for the critique.
• Write a paragraph for each of the following points, summarizing the main points and providing your own analysis:
• The purpose of the study
• The research question or questions
• The methods used
• The outcomes
• The conclusions were drawn by the author(s)
• Mention the strengths and weaknesses of the piece in a separate paragraph.
• Write a conclusion that summarizes your thoughts about the article.
• Free unlimited checks
• All common file formats
• Accurate results
• Intuitive interface

Research Methods in Article Critique Writing

When writing an article critique, it is important to use research methods to support your arguments. There are a variety of research methods that you can use, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. In this text, we will discuss four of the most common research methods used in article critique writing: quantitative research, qualitative research, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis.

Quantitative research is a research method that uses numbers and statistics to analyze data. This type of research is used to test hypotheses or measure a treatment’s effects. Quantitative research is normally considered more reliable than qualitative research because it considers a large amount of information. But, it might be difficult to find enough data to complete it properly.

Qualitative research is a research method that uses words and interviews to analyze data. This type of research is used to understand people’s thoughts and feelings. Qualitative research is usually more reliable than quantitative research because it is less likely to be biased. Though it is more expensive and tedious.

Systematic reviews are a type of research that uses a set of rules to search for and analyze studies on a particular topic. Some think that systematic reviews are more reliable than other research methods because they use a rigorous process to find and analyze studies. However, they can be pricy and long to carry out.

Meta-analysis is a type of research that combines several studies’ results to understand a treatment’s overall effect better. Meta-analysis is generally considered one of the most reliable type of research because it uses data from several approved studies. Conversely, it involves a long and costly process.

Are you still struggling to understand the critique of an article concept? You can contact an online review writing service to get help from skilled writers. You can get custom, and unique article reviews easily.

Tips for writing an Article Critique

It’s crucial to keep in mind that you’re not just sharing your opinion of the content when you write an article critique. Instead, you are providing a critical analysis, looking at its strengths and weaknesses. In order to write a compelling critique, you should follow these tips: Take note carefully of the essential elements as you read it.

• Make sure that you understand the thesis statement.
• Write down your thoughts, including strengths and weaknesses.
• Use evidence from to support your points.
• Create a clear and concise critique, making sure to avoid giving your opinion.

It is important to be clear and concise when creating an article critique. You should avoid giving your opinion and instead focus on providing a critical analysis. You should also use evidence from the article to support your points.

Readers also enjoyed

WHY WAIT? PLACE AN ORDER RIGHT NOW!

Just fill out the form, press the button, and have no worries!

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.

Making sense of research: A guide for critiquing a paper

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Nursing, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland.
• PMID: 16114192
• DOI: 10.5172/conu.14.1.38

Learning how to critique research articles is one of the fundamental skills of scholarship in any discipline. The range, quantity and quality of publications available today via print, electronic and Internet databases means it has become essential to equip students and practitioners with the prerequisites to judge the integrity and usefulness of published research. Finding, understanding and critiquing quality articles can be a difficult process. This article sets out some helpful indicators to assist the novice to make sense of research.

Publication types

• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Research Design
• Review Literature as Topic

SPH Writing Support Services

• Appointment System
• ESL Conversation Group
• Mini-Courses
• Thesis/Dissertation Writing Group
• Career Writing
• Citing Sources
• Critiquing Research Articles
• Project Planning for the Beginner This link opens in a new window
• Grant Writing
• Publishing in the Sciences
• Systematic Review Overview
• Systematic Review Resources This link opens in a new window
• Writing Across Borders / Writing Across the Curriculum
• Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: Perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers (Vance et al.)
• Critique Process (Boswell & Cannon)
• The experience of critiquing published research: Learning from the student and researcher perspective (Knowles & Gray)
• A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care (Lipp & Fothergill)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research (Coughlan et al.)
• Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research (Coughlan et al.)

Guidelines:

• Critiquing Research Articles (Flinders University)
• Framework for How to Read and Critique a Research Study (American Nurses Association)
• How to Critique a Journal Article (UIS)
• How to Critique a Research Paper (University of Michigan)
• How to Write an Article Critique
• Research Article Critique Form
• Writing a Critique or Review of a Research Article (University of Calgary)

Presentations:

• The Critique Process: Reviewing and Critiquing Research
• Writing a Critique
• << Previous: Citing Sources
• Next: Project Planning for the Beginner >>
• Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 12:52 PM
• URL: https://libguides.sph.uth.tmc.edu/writing_support_services

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

How to Critique a Research Article

Published: 01 October 2023

Let's briefly examine some basic pointers on how to perform a literature review.

If you've managed to get your hands on peer-reviewed articles, then you may wonder why it is necessary for you to perform your own article critique. Surely the article will be of good quality if it has made it through the peer-review process?

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

Publication bias can occur when editors only accept manuscripts that have a bearing on the direction of their own research, or reject manuscripts with negative findings. Additionally,  not all peer reviewers have expert knowledge on certain subject matters , which can introduce bias and sometimes a conflict of interest.

Performing your own critical analysis of an article allows you to consider its value to you and to your workplace.

Critical evaluation is defined as a systematic way of considering the truthfulness of a piece of research, its results and how relevant and applicable they are.

How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you're not sure where to start. Considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly reflect the content of the work, stimulating readers' interest.

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

• Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising other works rather than merely describing them
• Background information on the study to orientate the reader to the problem
• Hypothesis or aims of the study
• Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in this section are:

• What sort of sampling technique and size was used?
• What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. '553 responded to a survey sent to 750 medical technologists'
• Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
• Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study, and were these controlled for?
• Were there any obvious biases?
• If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case-controlled, blinded or double-blinded?

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that an average reader of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of the text. Consider whether:

• There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
• Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
• The data generated is consistent with the data collected.

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but, as mentioned previously, may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It should not introduce any new material but should address how the aims of the study have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further research.

These should be relevant to the study, be up-to-date, and should provide a comprehensive list of citations within the text.

Final Thoughts

Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace. Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely, and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing literature.

• Marshall, G 2005, ‘Critiquing a Research Article’, Radiography , vol. 11, no. 1, viewed 2 October 2023, https://www.radiographyonline.com/article/S1078-8174(04)00119-1/fulltext

Sarah Vogel View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write an Article Critique

Tips for Writing a Psychology Critique Paper

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Cultura RM / Gu Cultura / Getty Images

• Steps for Writing a Critique

Evaluating the Article

• How to Write It
• Helpful Tips

An article critique involves critically analyzing a written work to assess its strengths and flaws. If you need to write an article critique, you will need to describe the article, analyze its contents, interpret its meaning, and make an overall assessment of the importance of the work.

Critique papers require students to conduct a critical analysis of another piece of writing, often a book, journal article, or essay . No matter your major, you will probably be expected to write a critique paper at some point.

For psychology students, critiquing a professional paper is a great way to learn more about psychology articles, writing, and the research process itself. Students will analyze how researchers conduct experiments, interpret results, and discuss the impact of the results.

At a Glance

An article critique involves making a critical assessment of a single work. This is often an article, but it might also be a book or other written source. It summarizes the contents of the article and then evaluates both the strengths and weaknesses of the piece. Knowing how to write an article critique can help you learn how to evaluate sources with a discerning eye.

Steps for Writing an Effective Article Critique

While these tips are designed to help students write a psychology critique paper, many of the same principles apply to writing article critiques in other subject areas.

Your first step should always be a thorough read-through of the material you will be analyzing and critiquing. It needs to be more than just a casual skim read. It should be in-depth with an eye toward key elements.

To write an article critique, you should:

• Read the article , noting your first impressions, questions, thoughts, and observations
• Describe the contents of the article in your own words, focusing on the main themes or ideas
• Interpret the meaning of the article and its overall importance
• Critically evaluate the contents of the article, including any strong points as well as potential weaknesses

The following guidelines can help you assess the article you are reading and make better sense of the material.

Read the Introduction Section of the Article

Start by reading the introduction . Think about how this part of the article sets up the main body and how it helps you get a background on the topic.

• Is the hypothesis clearly stated?
• Is the necessary background information and previous research described in the introduction?

In addition to answering these basic questions, note other information provided in the introduction and any questions you have.

Read the Methods Section of the Article

Is the study procedure clearly outlined in the methods section ? Can you determine which variables the researchers are measuring?

Remember to jot down questions and thoughts that come to mind as you are reading. Once you have finished reading the paper, you can then refer back to your initial questions and see which ones remain unanswered.

Read the Results Section of the Article

Are all tables and graphs clearly labeled in the results section ? Do researchers provide enough statistical information? Did the researchers collect all of the data needed to measure the variables in question?

Make a note of any questions or information that does not seem to make sense. You can refer back to these questions later as you are writing your final critique.

Read the Discussion Section of the Article

Experts suggest that it is helpful to take notes while reading through sections of the paper you are evaluating. Ask yourself key questions:

• How do the researchers interpret the results of the study?
• Did the results support their hypothesis?
• Do the conclusions drawn by the researchers seem reasonable?

The discussion section offers students an excellent opportunity to take a position. If you agree with the researcher's conclusions, explain why. If you feel the researchers are incorrect or off-base, point out problems with the conclusions and suggest alternative explanations.

Another alternative is to point out questions the researchers failed to answer in the discussion section.

Begin Writing Your Own Critique of the Paper

Once you have read the article, compile your notes and develop an outline that you can follow as you write your psychology critique paper. Here's a guide that will walk you through how to structure your critique paper.

Introduction

Begin your paper by describing the journal article and authors you are critiquing. Provide the main hypothesis (or thesis) of the paper. Explain why you think the information is relevant.

Thesis Statement

The final part of your introduction should include your thesis statement. Your thesis statement is the main idea of your critique. Your thesis should briefly sum up the main points of your critique.

Article Summary

Provide a brief summary of the article. Outline the main points, results, and discussion.

When describing the study or paper, experts suggest that you include a summary of the questions being addressed, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Don't get bogged down by your summary. This section should highlight the main points of the article you are critiquing. Don't feel obligated to summarize each little detail of the main paper. Focus on giving the reader an overall idea of the article's content.

Your Analysis

In this section, you will provide your critique of the article. Describe any problems you had with the author's premise, methods, or conclusions. You might focus your critique on problems with the author's argument, presentation, information, and alternatives that have been overlooked.

When evaluating a study, summarize the main findings—including the strength of evidence for each main outcome—and consider their relevance to key demographic groups.  

Organize your paper carefully. Be careful not to jump around from one argument to the next. Arguing one point at a time ensures that your paper flows well and is easy to read.

Your critique paper should end with an overview of the article's argument, your conclusions, and your reactions.

More Tips When Writing an Article Critique

• As you are editing your paper, utilize a style guide published by the American Psychological Association, such as the official Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association .
• Reading scientific articles can be challenging at first. Remember that this is a skill that takes time to learn but that your skills will become stronger the more that you read.
• Take a rough draft of your paper to your school's writing lab for additional feedback and use your university library's resources.

What This Means For You

Being able to write a solid article critique is a useful academic skill. While it can be challenging, start by breaking down the sections of the paper, noting your initial thoughts and questions. Then structure your own critique so that you present a summary followed by your evaluation. In your critique, include the strengths and the weaknesses of the article.

Archibald D, Martimianakis MA. Writing, reading, and critiquing reviews .  Can Med Educ J . 2021;12(3):1-7. doi:10.36834/cmej.72945

Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review . PLoS Comput Biol . 2013;9(7):e1003149. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003149

Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article?   Turk J Urol . 2013;39(Suppl 1):44–48. doi:10.5152/tud.2013.054

Erol A. Basics of writing review articles .  Noro Psikiyatr Ars . 2022;59(1):1-2. doi:10.29399/npa.28093

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information
• Literature Review
• Author and affiliation
• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary

Methodology

• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

The methodology section or methods section tells you how the author(s) went about doing their research. It should let you know a) what method they used to gather data (survey, interviews, experiments, etc.), why they chose this method, and what the limitations are to this method.

The methodology section should be detailed enough that another researcher could replicate the study described. When you read the methodology or methods section:

• What kind of research method did the authors use? Is it an appropriate method for the type of study they are conducting?
• How did the authors get their tests subjects? What criteria did they use?
• What are the contexts of the study that may have affected the results (e.g. environmental conditions, lab conditions, timing questions, etc.)
• Is the sample size representative of the larger population (i.e., was it big enough?)
• Are the data collection instruments and procedures likely to have measured all the important characteristics with reasonable accuracy?
• Does the data analysis appear to have been done with care, and were appropriate analytical techniques used? 

A good researcher will always let you know about the limitations of his or her research.

• << Previous: Specialized Vocabulary
• Next: Results >>
• Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 3:26 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

• How to Cite
• Language & Lit
• Rhyme & Rhythm
• The Rewrite
• Search Glass

How to Critique a Research Methodology

A research method is the specific procedure used to answer a set of research questions. Popular methods vary by field, but include qualitative as well as quantitative approaches. Qualitative approaches rely more on observation and interpretation, while quantitative methods focus on data collection and analysis. Research methods should not be confused with research methodology, which is the study of research methods.

Identifying and Critiquing a Research Method

Find the research method in a research paper by looking for a section by this title, which will typically be toward the beginning of the paper, after the abstract and introduction. The description of the research method should include a rationale for why it was chosen.

Ask yourself whether the method used makes sense in answering the research questions. Most basically, research questions which seek to understand a phenomenon may be best answered with qualitative methods such as case studies or narrative approaches. Research questions which seek to describe a phenomenon may be better suited to quantitative methods, such as experiments or surveys.

Match the research questions with the author’s conclusions. Make sure the research questions were answered specifically. Incomplete answers often indicate improper choice of research method.

Be aware of the most common methodological errors. First, even when a specific method answers specific research questions, data disparities and questions that arise during research often cause scientists to redesign their studies. Thus, a completed study should proceed logically from question to method to discussion and conclusions. If there are obvious questions left unanswered, a methodological error may be the cause.

Examine the researcher’s conclusions from a broad perspective. Ask yourself if they make significant contributions to existing knowledge about the topic. For example, if a study of apples reveals that they have seeds, this would not be a significant finding. Studies that merely support existing knowledge can be helpful, but an overly basic study can be the result of an improper method.

• Before critiquing any study, become familiar with the most common research methods in your specific field.
• Critique a researcher's work based on what the work claims to be. It's unfair to critique any research based on what it isn't.
• "Mass Communication Research and Theory"; Guido H. Stempel, III et al.; 2003

Robin Donovan has been a freelance health writer specializing in chronic illness and women's health since 2008. Her work has appeared in "Cincinnati Magazine," "Southeast Ohio" magazine, "Perspectives" magazine, the "Athens News" and other publications. She has a master's degree in journalism from Ohio University.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Editing and Style

How to Critique an Article

Last Updated: September 9, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins and by wikiHow staff writer, Christopher M. Osborne, PhD . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 933,689 times.

A critique of an article is the objective analysis of a literary or scientific piece, with emphasis on whether or not the author supported the main points with reasonable and applicable arguments based on facts. It's easy to get caught up in simply summarizing the points of an article without truly analyzing and challenging it. A good critique demonstrates your impressions of the article, while providing ample evidence to back up your impressions. As the critic, take time to read carefully and thoughtfully, prepare your arguments and evidence, and write clearly and cogently.

Reading Actively

• What is the author's thesis/argument?
• What is the author's purpose in arguing said thesis?
• Who is the intended audience? Does the article effectively reach this audience?
• Does the author have ample and valid evidence?
• Are there any holes in the author's argument?
• Did the author misrepresent evidence or add bias to evidence?
• Does the author reach a conclusive point?

• For example, you could underline important passages, circle confusing ones, and star inconsistencies.
• Creating a legend with assigned symbols allows you to quickly mark up an article. Though it may take a little bit of time to recognize your own symbols, they will quickly become ingrained in your mind and allow you to breeze through an article much quicker than without a symbol legend.

• Don't be foolish enough to think that you will remember your idea when it comes time to write your critique.
• Spend the necessary time writing down your observations as you read. You will be glad you did when it comes time to put your observations into a complete analytical paper.

• Make a list of possible sources of evidence for your critique. Jog your memory for any literature you've read or documentaries you've seen that might be useful for evaluating the article.

Gathering Evidence

• Even if an author has done research and quoted respected experts, analyze the message for its practicality and real world application.

• Bias includes ignoring contrary evidence, misappropriating evidence to make conclusions appear different than they are, and imparting one's own, unfounded opinions on a text. Well-sourced opinions are perfectly OK, but those without academic support deserve to be met with a skeptical eye.
• Bias can also come from a place of prejudice. Note any biases related to race, ethnicity, gender, class, or politics.

• Note any inconsistencies between your interpretation of a text and the author's interpretation of a text. Such conflict may bear fruit when it comes time to write your review.
• See what other scholars have to say. If several scholars from diverse backgrounds have the same opinion about a text, that opinion should be given more weight than an argument with little support.

• These aspects of an article can reveal deeper issues in the larger argument. For example, an article written in a heated, overzealous tone might be ignoring or refusing to engage with contradictory evidence in its analysis.
• Always look up the definitions of unfamiliar words. A word's definition can completely change the meaning of a sentence, especially if a particular word has several definitions. Question why an author chose one particular word instead of another, and it might reveal something about their argument.

• Does the author detail the methods thoroughly?
• Is the study designed without major flaws?
• Is there a problem with the sample size?
• Was a control group created for comparison?
• Are all of the statistical calculations correct?
• Would another party be able to duplicate the experiment in question?
• Is the experiment significant for that particular field of study?

• While there is no such thing as too much good evidence, over-sourcing can also be a problem if your arguments become repetitive. Make sure each source provides something unique to your critique.
• Additionally, don't allow your use of sources to crowd out your own opinions and arguments.

• If you do agree entirely with the author, therefore, make sure to build upon the argument either by providing additional evidence or complicating the author's idea.
• You can provide contradictory evidence to an argument while still maintaining that a particular point of view is the correct one.
• Don't “take it easy” on the author due to misguided empathy; but neither should you be excessively negative in an attempt to prove your critical bona fides. Forcefully express your defensible points of agreement and disagreement.

Formatting Your Critique

• Be sure to include the name of the author, article title, the journal or publication the article appeared in, the publication date, and a statement about the focus and/or thesis of the article in your introductory paragraph(s).
• The introduction is not the place to provide evidence for your opinions. Your evidence will go in the body paragraphs of your critique.
• Be bold in your introductory assertions and make your purpose clear right off the bat. Skirting around or not fully committing to an argument lessens your credibility.

• Begin each body paragraph with a topic sentence that summarizes the content of the paragraph to come. Don't feel like you have to condense the entire paragraph into the topic sentence, however. This is purely a place to transition into a new or somehow different idea.
• End each body paragraph with a transitional sentence that hints at, though does not explicitly state, the content of the paragraph coming next. For example, you might write, "While John Doe shows that the number of cases of childhood obesity is rising at a remarkable rate in the U.S., there are instances of dropping obesity rates in some American cities." Your next paragraph would then provide specific examples of these anomalous cities that you just claimed exist.

• You might, for instance, utilize a counterargument, in which you anticipate a critique of your critique and reaffirm your position. Use phrases like “Admittedly,” “It is true that,” or “One might object here” to identify the counterargument. Then, answer these possible counters and turn back to your strengthened argument with “but,” “yet,” or “nevertheless.”

• While writing “This piece of garbage is an insult to historians everywhere” might garner attention, “This article falls short of the standards for scholarship in this area of historical study” is more likely to be taken seriously by readers.

• Are there broad implications for the field of study being assessed, or does your critique simply attempt to debunk the messy work of another scholar?
• Do your best to make a lasting mark on the reader in the conclusion by using assertive language to demonstrate the importance of your work: “Challenging the claims of such a distinguished scholar is no easy or enjoyable task, but it is a task we all must agree to do for our generation and those to follow.”

Sample Critique

Expert Q&A

• Avoid style-based critiques that include comments such as "I liked it" or "It was written poorly." Instead, focus on the content of the article. Thanks Helpful 18 Not Helpful 4
• Avoid summarizing the article at all costs. It is better to write a shorter critique than to attempt to fill up blank space with boring summation. Thanks Helpful 19 Not Helpful 5
• Write your critique in the third person and present tense, unless the style indicates another preference. Always review the style guidelines prior to starting to write. Thanks Helpful 40 Not Helpful 8
• Write with confidence and bold assertion. Thanks Helpful 30 Not Helpful 11
• Always proofread your written work at least twice before turning it in to your professor, boss, or publisher. Thanks Helpful 32 Not Helpful 13

You Might Also Like

• ↑ Richard Perkins. Writing Coach & Academic English Coordinator. Expert Interview. 1 September 2021.
• ↑ https://libguides.uta.edu/literarycriticism/steps
• ↑ https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/writinghandbook/chapter/chapter-1/
• ↑ https://www.jmu.edu/uwc/files/link-library/CritiqueHandout.pdf
• ↑ https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/hypothesis-testing/
• ↑ https://libguides.uwgb.edu/bias
• ↑ http://www.uis.edu/ctl/wp-content/uploads/sites/76/2013/03/Howtocritiqueajournalarticle.pdf
• ↑ https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/science-of-biology/a/the-science-of-biology

About This Article

To critique an article, first read it and take notes on the author's overall argument to help you develop a preliminary opinion. Then go back through the article to look for evidence that supports your position. Ask whether the author’s logic make sense, for example, or if they demonstrate any bias in their writing. Look at any claims the author makes about other texts, then read those texts yourself to see if the author's points are valid. For more information on critiquing an article, like including a counterargument, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Nov 5, 2017

Did this article help you?

Nov 16, 2017

Sanaa Hassane

May 30, 2017

Rose Ann Salceda

Jan 9, 2017

Chandler Lewis

Dec 30, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

How to Critique an Article: Mastering the Article Evaluation Process

Did you know that approximately 4.6 billion pieces of content are produced every day? From news articles and blog posts to scholarly papers and social media updates, the digital landscape is flooded with information at an unprecedented rate. In this age of information overload, honing the skill of articles critique has never been more crucial. Whether you're seeking to bolster your academic prowess, stay well-informed, or improve your writing, mastering the art of article critique is a powerful tool to navigate the vast sea of information and discern the pearls of wisdom.

How to Critique an Article: Short Description

In this article, we will equip you with valuable tips and techniques to become an insightful evaluator of written content. We present a real-life article critique example to guide your learning process and help you develop your unique critique style. Additionally, we explore the key differences between critiquing scientific articles and journals. Whether you're a student, researcher, or avid reader, this guide will empower you to navigate the vast ocean of information with confidence and discernment. Still, have questions? Don't worry! We've got you covered with a helpful FAQ section to address any lingering doubts. Get ready to unleash your analytical prowess and uncover the true potential of every article that comes your way!

What Is an Article Critique: Understanding The Power of Evaluation

An article critique is a valuable skill that involves carefully analyzing and evaluating a written piece, such as a journal article, blog post, or news article. It goes beyond mere summarization and delves into the deeper layers of the content, examining its strengths, weaknesses, and overall effectiveness. Think of it as an engaging conversation with the author, where you provide constructive feedback and insights.

For instance, let's consider a scenario where you're critiquing a research paper on climate change. Instead of simply summarizing the findings, you would scrutinize the methodology, data interpretation, and potential biases, offering thoughtful observations to enrich the discussion. Through the process of writing an article critique, you develop a critical eye, honing your ability to appreciate well-crafted work while also identifying areas for improvement.

In the following sections, our ' write my paper ' experts will uncover valuable tips on and key points on how to write a stellar critique, so let's explore more!

Unveiling the Key Aims of Writing an Article Critique

Writing an article critique serves several essential purposes that go beyond a simple review or summary. When engaging in the art of critique, as when you learn how to write a review article , you embark on a journey of in-depth analysis, sharpening your critical thinking skills and contributing to the academic and intellectual discourse. Primarily, an article critique allows you to:

• Evaluate the Content : By critiquing an article, you delve into its content, structure, and arguments, assessing its credibility and relevance.
• Strengthen Your Critical Thinking : This practice hones your ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in written works, fostering a deeper understanding of complex topics and critical evaluation skills.
• Engage in Scholarly Dialogue : Your critique contributes to the ongoing academic conversation, offering valuable insights and thoughtful observations to the existing body of knowledge.
• Enhance Writing Skills : By analyzing and providing feedback, you develop a keen eye for effective writing techniques, benefiting your own writing endeavors.
• Promote Continuous Learning : Through the writing process, you continually refine your analytical abilities, becoming an avid and astute learner in the pursuit of knowledge.

How to Critique an Article: Steps to Follow

The process of crafting an article critique may seem overwhelming, especially when dealing with intricate academic writing. However, fear not, for it is more straightforward than it appears! To excel in this art, all you require is a clear starting point and the skill to align your critique with the complexities of the content. To help you on your journey, follow these 3 simple steps and unlock the potential to provide insightful evaluations:

Step 1: Read the Article

The first and most crucial step when wondering how to do an article critique is to thoroughly read and absorb its content. As you delve into the written piece, consider these valuable tips from our custom essay writer to make your reading process more effective:

• Take Notes : Keep a notebook or digital document handy while reading. Jot down key points, noteworthy arguments, and any questions or observations that arise.
• Annotate the Text : Underline or highlight significant passages, quotes, or sections that stand out to you. Use different colors to differentiate between positive aspects and areas that may need improvement.
• Consider the Author's Purpose : Reflect on the author's main critical point and the intended audience. Much like an explanatory essay , evaluate how effectively the article conveys its message to the target readership.

Now, let's say you are writing an article critique on climate change. While reading, you come across a compelling quote from a renowned environmental scientist highlighting the urgency of addressing global warming. By taking notes and underlining this impactful quote, you can later incorporate it into your critique as evidence of the article's effectiveness in conveying the severity of the issue.

Step 2: Take Notes/ Make sketches

Once you've thoroughly read the article, it's time to capture your thoughts and observations by taking comprehensive notes or creating sketches. This step plays a crucial role in organizing your critique and ensuring you don't miss any critical points. Here's how to make the most out of this process:

• Highlight Key Arguments : Identify the main arguments presented by the author and highlight them in your notes. This will help you focus on the core ideas that shape the article.
• Record Supporting Evidence : Take note of any evidence, examples, or data the author uses to support their arguments. Assess the credibility and effectiveness of this evidence in bolstering their claims.
• Examine Structure and Flow : Pay attention to the article's structure and how each section flows into the next. Analyze how well the author transitions between ideas and whether the organization enhances or hinders the reader's understanding.
• Create Visual Aids : If you're a visual learner, consider using sketches or diagrams to map out the article's key points and their relationships. Visual representations can aid in better grasping the content's structure and complexities.

Step 3: Format Your Paper

Once you've gathered your notes and insights, it's time to give structure to your article critique. Proper formatting ensures your critique is organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Here are essential tips for formatting an article critique effectively:

• Introduction : Begin with a clear and engaging introduction that provides context for the article you are critiquing. Include the article's title, author's name, publication details, and a brief overview of the main theme or thesis.
• Thesis Statement : Present a strong and concise thesis statement that conveys your overall assessment of the article. Your thesis should reflect whether you found the article compelling, convincing, or in need of improvement.
• Body Paragraphs : Organize your critique into well-structured body paragraphs. Each paragraph should address a specific point or aspect of the article, supported by evidence and examples from your notes.
• Use Evidence : Back up your critique with evidence from the article itself. Quote relevant passages, cite examples, and reference data to strengthen your analysis and demonstrate your understanding of the article's content.
• Conclusion : Conclude your critique by summarizing your main points and reiterating your overall evaluation. Avoid introducing new arguments in the conclusion and instead provide a concise and compelling closing statement.
• Citation Style : If required, adhere to the specific citation style guidelines (e.g., APA, MLA) for in-text citations and the reference list. Properly crediting the original article and any additional sources you use in your critique is essential.

How to Critique a Journal Article: Mastering the Steps

So, you've been assigned the task of critiquing a journal article, and not sure where to start? Worry not, as we've prepared a comprehensive guide with different steps to help you navigate this process with confidence. Journal articles are esteemed sources of scholarly knowledge, and effectively critiquing them requires a systematic approach. Let's dive into the steps to expertly evaluate and analyze a journal article:

Step 1: Understanding the Research Context

Begin by familiarizing yourself with the broader research context in which the journal article is situated. Learn about the field, the topic's significance, and any previous relevant research. This foundational knowledge will provide a valuable backdrop for your journal article critique example.

Step 2: Evaluating the Article's Structure

Assess the article's overall structure and organization. Examine how the introduction sets the stage for the research and how the discussion flows logically from the methodology and results. A well-structured article enhances readability and comprehension.

Step 3: Analyzing the Research Methodology

Dive into the research methodology section, which outlines the approach used to gather and analyze data. Scrutinize the study's design, data collection methods, sample size, and any potential biases or limitations. Understanding the research process will enable you to gauge the article's reliability.

Step 4: Assessing the Data and Results

Examine the presentation of data and results in the article. Are the findings clear and effectively communicated? Look for any discrepancies between the data presented and the interpretations made by the authors.

Step 5: Analyzing the Discussion and Conclusions

Evaluate the discussion section, where the authors interpret their findings and place them in the broader context. Assess the soundness of their conclusions, considering whether they are adequately supported by the data.

Step 6: Considering Ethical Considerations

Reflect on any ethical considerations raised by the research. Assess whether the study respects the rights and privacy of participants and adheres to ethical guidelines.

Step 7: Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Identify the article's strengths, such as well-designed experiments, comprehensive, relevant literature reviews, or innovative approaches. Also, pinpoint any weaknesses, like gaps in the research, unclear explanations, or insufficient evidence.

Step 8: Offering Constructive Feedback

Provide constructive feedback to the authors, highlighting both positive aspects and areas for improvement for future research. Suggest ways to enhance the research methods, data analysis, or discussion to bolster its overall quality.

Step 9: Presenting Your Critique

Organize your critique into a well-structured paper, starting with an introduction that outlines the article's context and purpose. Develop a clear and focused thesis statement that conveys your assessment. Support your points with evidence from the article and other credible sources.

By following these steps on how to critique a journal article, you'll be well-equipped to craft a thoughtful and insightful piece, contributing to the scholarly discourse in your field of study!

Got an Article that Needs Some Serious Critiquing?

Don't sweat it! Our critique maestros are armed with wit, wisdom, and a dash of magic to whip that piece into shape.

An Article Critique: Journal Vs. Research

In the realm of academic writing, the terms 'journal article' and 'research paper' are often used interchangeably, which can lead to confusion about their differences. Understanding the distinctions between critiquing a research article and a journal piece is essential. Let's delve into the key characteristics that set apart a journal article from a research paper and explore how the critique process may differ for each:

Publication Scope:

• Journal Article: Presents focused and concise research findings or new insights within a specific subject area.
• Research Paper: Explores a broader range of topics and can cover extensive research on a particular subject.

Format and Structure:

• Journal Article: Follows a standardized format with sections such as abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.
• Research Paper: May not adhere to a specific format and allows flexibility in organizing content based on the research scope.

Depth of Analysis:

• Journal Article: Provides a more concise and targeted analysis of the research topic or findings.
• Research Paper: Offers a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis, often including extensive literature reviews and data analyses.
• Journal Article: Typically shorter in length, ranging from a few pages to around 10-15 pages.
• Research Paper: Tends to be longer, spanning from 20 to several hundred pages, depending on the research complexity.

Publication Type:

• Journal Article: Published in academic journals after undergoing rigorous peer review.
• Research Paper: May be published as a standalone work or as part of a thesis, dissertation, or academic report.
• Journal Article: Targeted at academics, researchers, and professionals within the specific field of study.
• Research Paper: Can cater to a broader audience, including students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public.
• Journal Article: Primarily aimed at sharing new research findings, contributing to academic discourse, and advancing knowledge in the field.
• Research Paper: Focuses on comprehensive exploration and analysis of a research topic, aiming to make a substantial contribution to the body of knowledge.

Appreciating these differences becomes paramount when engaging in the critique of these two forms of scholarly publications, as they each demand a unique approach and thoughtful consideration of their distinctive attributes. And if you find yourself desiring a flawlessly crafted research article critique example, entrusting the task to professional writers is always an excellent option – you can easily order essay that meets your needs.

Article Critique Example

Our collection of essay samples offers a comprehensive and practical illustration of the critique process, granting you access to valuable insights.

Tips on How to Critique an Article

Critiquing an article requires a keen eye, critical thinking, and a thoughtful approach to evaluating its content. To enhance your article critique skills and provide insightful analyses, consider incorporating these five original and practical tips into your process:

1. Analyze the Author's Bias : Be mindful of potential biases in the article, whether they are political, cultural, or personal. Consider how these biases may influence the author's perspective and the presentation of information. Evaluating the presence of bias enables you to discern the objectivity and credibility of the article's arguments.

2. Examine the Supporting Evidence : Scrutinize the quality and relevance of the evidence used to support the article's claims. Look for well-researched data, credible sources, and up-to-date statistics. Assess how effectively the author integrates evidence to build a compelling case for their arguments.

3. Consider the Audience's Perspective : Put yourself in the shoes of the intended audience and assess how well the article communicates its ideas. Consider whether the language, tone, and level of complexity are appropriate for the target readership. A well-tailored article is more likely to engage and resonate with its audience.

4. Investigate the Research Methodology : If the article involves research or empirical data, delve into the methodology used to gather and analyze the information. Evaluate the soundness of the study design, sample size, and data collection methods. Understanding the research process adds depth to your critique.

5. Discuss the Implications and Application : Consider the broader implications of the article's findings or arguments. Discuss how the insights presented in the article could impact the field of study or have practical applications in real-world scenarios. Identifying the potential consequences of the article's content strengthens your critique's depth and relevance.

Wrapping Up

In a nutshell, article critique is an essential skill that helps us grow as critical thinkers and active participants in academia. Embrace the opportunity to analyze and offer constructive feedback, contributing to a brighter future of knowledge and understanding. Remember, each critique is a chance to engage with new ideas and expand our horizons. So, keep honing your critique skills and enjoy the journey of discovery in the world of academic exploration!

Tired of Ordinary Critiques?

Brace yourself for an extraordinary experience! Our critique geniuses are on standby, ready to unleash their extraordinary skills on your article!

What Steps Need to Be Taken in Writing an Article Critique?

What is the recommended length for an article critique, related articles.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, school leadership and teaching practice: a systematic review of studies of the indirect effects.

Journal of Educational Administration

ISSN : 0957-8234

Article publication date: 3 May 2024

Since teaching practice is the most important within-school determinant of student learning outcomes, a deepened understanding of how and why school leadership contributes to effective teaching is needed. This article aimed to systematically review the knowledge that has been accumulated about the indirect relations between school leadership and instructional practices.

Design/methodology/approach

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guided the selection of relevant articles from the databases Scopus and Google Scholar. Twenty-six published works met the eligibility criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis and content analysis.

The most frequently measured mediators of the effects of school leadership on teaching practice were teacher collaboration, professional learning and teacher self-efficacy. Most studies simultaneously modeled multiple mediated pathways from school leadership to teaching practice. However, only a few analyzed studies used time lags when examining relationships between constructs.

Originality/value

This is the first study to systematically review knowledge on pathways through which school leadership is related to classroom instruction. Thus, this review provides a comprehensive understanding of processes through which school leadership achieves its effects on instructional practices.

• School leadership
• Indirect effects
• Teaching practice
• Instruction

Ninković, S. and Knežević Florić, O. (2024), "School leadership and teaching practice: a systematic review of studies of the indirect effects", Journal of Educational Administration , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2023-0190

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

What the New Overtime Rule Means for Workers

One of the basic principles of the American workplace is that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. Simply put, every worker’s time has value. A cornerstone of that promise is the  Fair Labor Standards Act ’s (FLSA) requirement that when most workers work more than 40 hours in a week, they get paid more. The  Department of Labor ’s new overtime regulation is restoring and extending this promise for millions more lower-paid salaried workers in the U.S.

Overtime protections have been a critical part of the FLSA since 1938 and were established to protect workers from exploitation and to benefit workers, their families and our communities. Strong overtime protections help build America’s middle class and ensure that workers are not overworked and underpaid.

Some workers are specifically exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime protections, including bona fide executive, administrative or professional employees. This exemption, typically referred to as the “EAP” exemption, applies when: 

1. An employee is paid a salary,  

2. The salary is not less than a minimum salary threshold amount, and 

3. The employee primarily performs executive, administrative or professional duties.

While the department increased the minimum salary required for the EAP exemption from overtime pay every 5 to 9 years between 1938 and 1975, long periods between increases to the salary requirement after 1975 have caused an erosion of the real value of the salary threshold, lessening its effectiveness in helping to identify exempt EAP employees.

The department’s new overtime rule was developed based on almost 30 listening sessions across the country and the final rule was issued after reviewing over 33,000 written comments. We heard from a wide variety of members of the public who shared valuable insights to help us develop this Administration’s overtime rule, including from workers who told us: “I would love the opportunity to...be compensated for time worked beyond 40 hours, or alternately be given a raise,” and “I make around $40,000 a year and most week[s] work well over 40 hours (likely in the 45-50 range). This rule change would benefit me greatly and ensure that my time is paid for!” and “Please, I would love to be paid for the extra hours I work!”

The department’s final rule, which will go into effect on July 1, 2024, will increase the standard salary level that helps define and delimit which salaried workers are entitled to overtime pay protections under the FLSA. 

Starting July 1, most salaried workers who earn less than $844 per week will become eligible for overtime pay under the final rule. And on Jan. 1, 2025, most salaried workers who make less than $1,128 per week will become eligible for overtime pay. As these changes occur, job duties will continue to determine overtime exemption status for most salaried employees.

The rule will also increase the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees (who are not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA if certain requirements are met) from $107,432 per year to $132,964 per year on July 1, 2024, and then set it equal to $151,164 per year on Jan. 1, 2025.

Starting July 1, 2027, these earnings thresholds will be updated every three years so they keep pace with changes in worker salaries, ensuring that employers can adapt more easily because they’ll know when salary updates will happen and how they’ll be calculated.

The final rule will restore and extend the right to overtime pay to many salaried workers, including workers who historically were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA because of their lower pay or the type of work they performed. 

We urge workers and employers to visit  our website to learn more about the final rule.

Jessica Looman is the administrator for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. Follow the Wage and Hour Division on Twitter at  @WHD_DOL  and  LinkedIn .  Editor's note: This blog was edited to correct a typo (changing "administrator" to "administrative.")

• Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
• Fair Labor Standards Act
• overtime rule

SHARE THIS:   

• Overall Rating
• Pros and Cons
• Share Certificate
• Money Market Account
• About Affinity Plus FCU
• Methodology

How Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Compares

Affinity plus federal credit union review 2024.

Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us and terms apply to offers listed (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate banking products to write unbiased product reviews.

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union: Overall Rating

Affinity plus federal credit union: pros and cons, affinity plus federal credit union membership savings account review.

no monthly service fee

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No monthly service fees
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. $10 minimum opening deposit
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Earn rewards
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Minimum $10 balance (you're unable to go below $10)
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Low interest rate
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Interest compounds monthly, not daily
• 26 branches in Minnesota, or open an account online from around the US
• Many ways to become a member if you live in Minnesota, or donate $25 to the Affinity Plus Foundation to join
• Earn 4 MyPlus Rewards points each month for every $1,000 in average daily balances; use rewards on categories such as travel, gift cards, or charitable donations
• Interest compounded monthly
• Federally insured by the NCUA

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union has a few savings accounts, but you must open a Membership Savings Account when you join the credit union. There's no monthly service fee, and you can earn rewards to put toward cash back, travel, and other perks. It pays a low interest rate, though. 

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Better Than Free Checking Account Review

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No monthly fees
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. $20 minimum opening deposit
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Waive 1 overdraft fee each year
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No out-of-network ATM fees
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Round up debit card purchases for extra cash to go into savings
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Overdraft line of credit is available
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. $35 overdraft fee
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Does not reimburse any fees charged by out-of-network ATM providers
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. No free overdraft protection
• 60,000 free ATMs around the US in the MoneyPass, SUM, and CO-OP networks
• Earn 4 MyPlus Rewards points each month for every $1,000 in average daily balances; earn 1 point for every $6 you spend on your debit card and double on months when you make 30 debit card transactions or more; use rewards on categories such as travel, gift cards, or charitable donations

The Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Better Than Free Checking Account is a well-rounded checking account. It doesn't charge monthly service or ATM fees , and it waives one overdraft fee per year. The account also offers early direct deposit. 

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Basic Certificate Review

0.30% to 5.00%

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. $500 minimum deposit
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. High interest rates
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Interest compounded monthly, not daily
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. Standard to high early withdrawal penalties
• Terms range from 3 months to 5 years
• Early withdrawal penalties: 90 days interest for terms of 12 months or less; 180 days interest for terms of 13 to 36 months; 365 days interest for terms longer than 36 months

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union is a good choice for opening a share certificate. It pays solid interest rates for most terms, and you only need $500 to open an account.

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Superior Money Market Account Review

0.10% to 4.00%

• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Competitive interest rates
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No opening deposit
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. No monthly service fee
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. Paper checks
• Check mark icon A check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction. ATM card
• con icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. $500 monthly direct deposits required to earn competitive APY
• Reverse-tiered account
• Earn highest APY on balances under $25,000
• Earn only 0.10% APY without monthly direct deposits of $500 and enrollment in digital statements
• Interest is compounded and paid monthly

The Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Superior Money Market Account pays 4.00% APY on balances up to $25,000 and 3.50% APY on balances over $25,000. To earn the competitive rate each month, you'll need to be enrolled in e-statements and receive at least $500 in direct deposits . Otherwise, you'll only earn 0.10% APY if you don't meet the requirements during a particular month.

About Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union 

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union has 29 open branches in Minnesota. The Minneapolis (Nicollet Mall) branch is closed until further notice. If you don't live in Minnesota, you can still open accounts online.

You may contact customer support Monday through Friday and Saturday mornings over live online chat, video chat, or the phone.

The credit union's MyPlus Rewards program gives you points for spending money on your APFCU debit and credit cards, maintaining a certain amount of money in your accounts, and taking out loans. Redeem points in categories such as travel, cash back, donating to charities, and reducing your loan interest rates.

The Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union mobile app has 4.5 out of 5 stars in the Google Play store and 4.8 out of 5 stars Apple store.

Your deposits are federally insured by the NCUA for up to $250,000, or up to $500,000 for joint accounts. This means your money is safe even if the credit union closes.

How to Join Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union

If you don't live in Minnesota, the easiest way to become a member of Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union is to make a one-time $25 payment to the Affinity Plus Foundation. You can also join if you meet any of the following criteria:

• Work for the State of Minnesota, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union, an organization that gets funding from the State of Minnesota, or a Preferred Partner company
• Are a current student or alum of any Minnesota State community or technical colleges, Minnesota State University (Mankato), Minnesota State University (Moorhead), Bemidji State University, Metropolitan State University, Southwest Minnesota State University, St. Cloud State University, or Winona State University
• Are a current student University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) or a University of Minnesota alum paying dues to the alumni association
• Live, work, or worship in Arden Hills, downtown Minneapolis, Mounds View, New Brighton, Roseville, Shoreview, St. Anthony, or downtown St. Paul
• Have a relative or roommate who is already a member or eligible for membership

To become a member, you'll need to open an Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Membership Savings Account.

Is Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Trustworthy?

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union does not have any public controversies.

The credit union is a Better Business Bureau-accredited company. The BBB focuses on consumer trust, and it gives Affinity Plus FCU an A+ rating . A strong BBB score signifies that a company responds effectively to customer complaints, advertises honestly, and is transparent about business practices.

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union FAQs

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union has locations in the following cities in Minnesota: Alexandria, Bemidji, St. Cloud, Coon Rapids, Cambridge, New Hope, Brainerd Lakes, Roseville, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Eagan, Lakeville, Hastings, Mankato, Faribault, Fergus Falls, Grand Rapids, Rochester, Duluth, Mahnomen, Moorhead, and Winona. It also has one branch in Minneapolis but it is closed until further notice.

You'll need a minimum of $10 to open the Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Membership Savings Account. This account establishes your membership with the credit union. 

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union Certificates pay 0.30% to 5.00% APY. 

Methodology: How We Reviewed Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union 

For our Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union review, we utilized our bank account methodology to rate bank products.

At Personal Finance Insider, we rate bank accounts on a scale from zero to five stars. We review different features for distinct types of bank accounts. For example, we'll look at early withdrawal penalties and CD variety specifically for CDs. Meanwhile, for checking accounts, we'll factor in the ATM network size and fees, as well as its overdraft protection options. We'll also usually examine minimum opening deposits, monthly service fees, customer support availability, and mobile app ratings for all types of bank accounts.

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union vs. Premier Members Credit Union 

Premier Members Credit Union has 17 branches in Colorado. You can also open accounts online if you don't live in Colorado.

Both banks have solid checking and money market accounts, so it could be a toss-up between the two institutions. Your best option will probably depend on minor preferences regarding specific bank account features. 

For example, Premier Members Credit Union has a free interest-earning account. To get the most out of the account, each month you'll need to make at least 25 debit card transactions, receive $500 in direct deposits, and be enrolled in e-statements.

Affinity Plus Credit Union also offers a high-yield checking account , but you'll need to be mindful of a monthly service fee.  

In regards to money market accounts, both institutions have unique tiered interest rates. Affinity Plus Credit Union has two tiers, and you'll earn a higher interest rate on lower account balances. To earn 3.00% to 3.50% APY, you'll need to be enrolled in e-statements and receive at least $500 in direct deposits. Otherwise, you'll only earn 0.10% APY.

Premiers Credit Union has seven tiers in its Premier Members Credit Union Money Market Account and you'll earn 0.50% to 5.00% APY. The rate will vary depending on your account balance. Generally, higher account balances offer lower interest rates.

Premier Members Credit Union Review

Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union vs. Sallie Mae

Sallie Mae is an online bank that has savings accounts, money market accounts, and CDs. Your choice between the two institutions could also come down to which other accounts you want to open. 

Both institutions pay high interest rates on money market accounts . Sallie Mae pays the same rate on your entire balance, while Affinity Plus FCU has a tiered system that pays a higher rate on lower balances.

If you're looking to open a checking account, Affinity Plus FCU will have to be your default option, because Sallie Mae doesn't have these accounts. 

Sallie Mae will likely be a better option if you'd like to get a high-interest rate on a savings account. For example, the Sallie Mae SmartyPig Account pays 4.25% APY, which is more than any of Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union's savings accounts.

Sallie Mae Review

• Are banks open today? Here's a list of US bank holidays for 2023
• Best CD rates
• Best High-yield savings accounts
• Four reasons why your debit card might be denied even when you have money

• Main content

Attorney general moves to reclassify marijuana as lower-risk drug

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday recommended loosening restrictions on marijuana, a historic shift in federal drug policy that could broaden access to the drug for medicinal use and boost cannabis industries in states where it is legal.

The measure, if enacted, would not legalize marijuana at the federal level but still represents a milestone that could prove to be a political win for President Biden , who is campaigning for reelection and has sought to ameliorate racial and criminal justice inequities wrought by the nation’s long war on drugs.

The Justice Department submitted the formal recommendation to the White House on Tuesday, an agency spokeswoman said in a statement. It follows the Drug Enforcement Administration’s approval of a federal health agency recommendation that marijuana be reclassified.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget must review the measure, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal administrative matters. The proposal, if accepted, would be formally published and would not go into effect for months until the public has a chance to comment.

The DEA’s approval was first reported Tuesday by the Associated Press. The DEA, the Justice Department and the White House declined to comment.

For more than five decades, marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I controlled substance with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, in the same tier as heroin. Under the Justice Department’s proposed change, marijuana would go to the less risky Schedule III — in the same category as prescription drugs such as ketamine, anabolic steroids and testosterone.

The historic policy shift comes as marijuana is easier than ever to obtain and has become an industry worth billions of dollars in the United States. The majority of Americans now live in states where they can legally buy weed. Thirty-eight states and D.C. have legalized medical marijuana programs, and 24 have approved recreational marijuana.

In October 2022, Biden directed health officials to expedite a review of whether marijuana should remain a Schedule I substance. In August, the Department of Health and Human Services notified DEA that it was recommending marijuana be reclassified. The agency relied on a Food and Drug Administration scientific analysis that found marijuana has an accepted medical use and evidence it can treat certain conditions, including nausea and vomiting. It also cited studies showing “moderate benefit” of smoking marijuana for pain.

The reclassification may have only a limited impact on criminal justice cases involving marijuana. Biden has granted pardons for federal marijuana possession cases, and federal prosecutors generally prioritize drug dealers involved with deadly substances such as fentanyl.

Cannabis advocates Tuesday hailed the potential change as a milestone that will transform how the federal government treats marijuana, signaling that the dangers have been overblown and that criminal cases should assume a lower priority.

“This is going to help to normalize cannabis more than anything that’s ever occurred in the U.S. since they started the war on drugs,” said David Culver, senior vice president of public affairs at the U.S. Cannabis Council, an industry advocacy group. “This is the most significant federal cannabis reform in modern history, and I think sets us on a path for the ultimate goal of federal legalization.”

Still, cannabis advocates — who want to see marijuana regulated like tobacco and alcohol — point out that even if the drug is reclassified, it remains a federally controlled substance subject to prosecution.

“Those involved in the state legal marijuana industry and the tens of millions of Americans who patronize that industry are all acting in a manner that is inconsistent with federal law,” said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an advocacy group. “Theoretically, if the federal government wished to do so, all of these players could be prosecuted for being in violation of the federal law.”

At the state level, the rapid legalization of marijuana has facilitated the rise of a booming industry of growers, processors, dispensaries and other cannabis companies. But the industry has struggled in recent years as it faced continued competition from the illicit market along with a glut of supply in some states that drove down prices. States collected $3.77 billion in cannabis taxes in 2022, down from $3.86 billion in 2021 in the first-ever decline in revenue, according to a report from the Marijuana Policy Project.

Under IRS code 280E, businesses that sell Schedule I substances cannot deduct business expenses, resulting in a substantially higher tax rate for companies that grow and sell marijuana. But with marijuana reclassified, they will be eligible for the tax breaks.

Kaliko Castille, former board president of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, said many cannabis companies have struggled to become profitable in part because of high taxes.

“This will potentially help small businesses who are struggling around the country get into the black,” Castille said. “My concern is although this will provide some relief for small businesses, it may actually lead to more consolidation and smoking out smaller players.”

The long-expected recommendation could have political implications for the Biden campaign.

Democratic senators have pushed Biden to go further and completely decriminalize marijuana.

“Congress must do everything we can to end the federal prohibition on cannabis and address longstanding harms caused by the War on Drugs,” Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement Tuesday.

Biden’s top advisers have long viewed marijuana rescheduling as a potential political win, particularly among younger voters not yet engaged in the election at levels that Democrats want. While the policy shift wouldn’t make recreational use legal under federal law, it has the potential to signal to users of the drug and those who seek decriminalization that he is on their side.

Vice President Harris has been holding events recently to emphasize the need for “marijuana reform” — including a March event at the White House with the musician Fat Joe and a January event in the swing state of Nevada, where recreational marijuana is legal, to announce a policy change that will make it easier for people with criminal convictions to get federal business loans.

“Trump and his administration took marijuana reform backwards,” the Biden campaign announced last week, citing a 2018 decision by Trump’s Justice Department to empower prosecutors to more aggressively prosecute marijuana in states where the drug is legal.

Former president Donald Trump , who is expected to be the Republican nominee for president again, has campaigned in the past on allowing states to set their own policies for marijuana, saying he supports the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes. He has not weighed in on whether he supports a reclassification of marijuana under federal law.

The potential reclassification has drawn criticism from some former federal law enforcement officials, and conservative members of Congress have said stripping marijuana’s Schedule I status would hinder attempts to prosecute drug traffickers and harm public health. While marijuana has been shown to have medicinal benefits, some studies have found the drug has downsides, including addiction and negative effects on the developing brain.

“If the Biden Administration follows through with rescheduling, this decision will be anti-science and harmful to public health and safety,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), among the most vocal cannabis critics in Congress, posted on X.

One of the nation’s most prominent marijuana critics, Kevin Sabet, blasted the move, saying that “politics and industry influence have loomed over this decision from the very beginning.”

In a statement, Sabet blasted the FDA’s scientific analysis and noted that marijuana has never passed federal safety and efficacy protocols. “A drug isn’t medicine because it’s popular,” said Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a group that advocates decreasing marijuana use.

It remains unclear what the FDA’s role will be in regulating marijuana as a Schedule III substance.

The move could facilitate much-needed research into the health benefits — and harms — of marijuana, scientific study that has been historically stifled by the drug’s status as the riskiest of controlled substances.

Reclassification could persuade more doctors to recommend marijuana, despite the lack of FDA approval for marijuana plant products as prescription medications. The agency has approved only one cannabis-related drug, Epidiolex, made from CBD, a cannabis extract that does not induce a high; it is used to treat rare forms of severe epilepsy. The agency has approved three other drug products made from synthetic versions of THC to treat nausea.

Some legal experts say that under federal law, if marijuana is moved to Schedule III, doctors or state-authorized dispensaries can distribute medical marijuana — without FDA drug approval — directly to patients without a prescription, as long as the system does not involve interstate commerce.

• Queen's University Library
• Research Guides

How to Critique an Article (Psychology)

• Introduction
• Do their results map to their hypotheses from the article's Introduction?
• Are complex statistics explained well, and are they justified above simpler statistics? (This might also be in a data analysis section in the methods.)
• Are the statistics explained in plain language?
• Are there tables and/or graphs to show the results? Are they well labeled and discussed within the text? Are they easy to understand?
• If there are graphs comparing across conditions, are all of the y -axes on the same metric?

• Last Updated: Nov 5, 2021 9:46 AM
• Subjects: Psychology

• Español – América Latina
• Português – Brasil
• Tiếng Việt
• Chrome for Developers

An alternative proposal for CSS masonry

The Chrome team is keen to see an implementation of masonry type layouts on the web. However, we feel that implementing it as part of the CSS Grid specification as proposed in the recent WebKit post would be a mistake. We also feel that the WebKit post argued against a version of masonry that no one was proposing.

Therefore, this post aims to explain why we at Chrome have concerns about implementing masonry as part of the CSS Grid Layout specification, and clarify exactly what the alternate proposal enables. In short:

• The Chrome team is very keen to unblock masonry, we know it's something developers want.
• Adding masonry to the grid specification is problematic for reasons other than whether you think masonry is a grid or not.
• Defining masonry outside of the grid specification does not prevent multiple track sizes for masonry, or the use of properties such as alignment or gaps, or any other features used in grid layout.

Should masonry be part of grid?

The Chrome team believes that masonry should be a separate layout method , defined using display: masonry (or another keyword should a better name be decided upon). Later in this post, you can see some examples of what that could look like in code.

There are two related reasons why we feel that masonry is better defined outside of grid layout—the potential of layout performance issues, and the fact that both masonry and grid have features that make sense in one layout method but not the other.

Performance

Grid and masonry are opposite in terms of how the browser deals with sizing and placement. When a grid is laid out, all items are placed before layout and the browser knows exactly what is in each track. This enables the complex intrinsic sizing that's so useful in grid. With masonry, the items are placed as they are laid out, and the browser doesn't know how many are in each track. This isn't a problem with all intrinsic sized tracks or all fixed sized tracks but is if you mix fixed and intrinsic tracks. To get round the problem, the browser needs to do a pre-layout step of laying out every item in every possible way to get measurements, with a large grid this would contribute to layout performance issues.

Therefore, if you had a masonry layout with a track definition of grid-template-columns: 200px auto 200px —a very common thing to do in grid—you start to run into problems. These problems become exponential once you add subgrids .

There is an argument that most people won't run into this, however we already know that people do have very large grids . We don't want to ship something that has limits to how it can be used, when there is an alternative approach.

What do we do about the things that don't make sense in each layout method?

When flexbox and grid became part of CSS, developers often felt that they behaved in an inconsistent way. The inconsistency they were experiencing was because of long-held assumptions about how layout worked, based on block layout. Over time, developers have started to get an understanding of formatting contexts. When we switch into a grid or flex formatting context some things behave differently. For example, you know that when you are in flexbox, not all of the alignment methods are available, because flexbox is one-dimensional.

Bundling masonry into grid breaks this clear link between formatting context and availability of things like alignment properties, which are defined in the Box Alignment specification per formatting context.

If we decide to deal with the performance issue outlined previously by making mixed intrinsic and fixed track definitions illegal in masonry, then you will have to remember that a very common pattern for grid layouts doesn't work for masonry.

There are also patterns that would make sense in masonry, for example grid-template-columns: repeat(auto-fill, max-content) , because you don't have cross constraints, but need to remain invalid in grid. The following is a list of properties that we expect to behave differently or have different valid values.

• grid-template-areas : In masonry you can only specify the initial row in the non-masonry direction.
• grid-template : The shorthand would need to account for all differences.
• Track sizing values for grid-template-columns and grid-template-rows due to differences in legal values.
• grid-auto-flow doesn't apply to masonry and masonry-auto-flow doesn't apply to grid. Merging them would create problems of things that are invalid due to the layout method you are in.
• Grid has four placement properties ( grid-column-start and so on), masonry only has two.
• Grid can use all six of the justify-* and align-* properties, but Masonry uses only a subset like flexbox.

There will also be a requirement to specify what happens in all of the new error cases caused by developers using a value that isn't valid in grid-with-masonry or grid-without-masonry. For example, it's valid to use grid-template-columns: masonry or grid-template-rows: masonry but not both at once. What happens if you do use both at once? These details have to be specified so that all browsers do the same thing.

This all becomes complicated from a specification point of view, now and in the future. We will need to ensure that everything takes into account masonry, and whether it does or does not work in masonry. It's also confusing from the point of view of developers. Why should you need to keep in your head that despite using display: grid some things don't work on account of using masonry?

An alternative proposal

As already mentioned, the Chrome team would like to define masonry outside of the grid specification. This does not mean that it would be limited to a very simple layout method with identical column sizes. All of the demos in the WebKit post would still be possible.

Classic masonry layout

When most people think of masonry, they think of a layout with multiple, equal sized columns. This would be defined using the following CSS, which needs a line less code than the equivalent grid bundled version .

Use grid type track sizing for different column widths

Other than the previously mentioned issue with mixed intrinsic and fixed track sizing, you could use all of the track sizing that you love from grid. Such as the example from the WebKit blog post , a pattern of repeating narrow and wider columns.

Additional track sizing for masonry

There are additional track sizing options that we don't allow in grid because of the fact that grid is a two-dimensional layout method. These would be useful in masonry but it would be confusing if they then didn't work in grid.

Auto-filling max-content sized tracks.

Auto-filling auto sized tracks

Allow content to span columns, and place items on the masonry layout

There's no reason not to have content spanning columns in a separate masonry specification. This might use a masonry-track property, being a shorthand for masonry-track-start and masonry-track-end as you only have one dimension to span things when in a masonry layout.

Sub-masonry or subgrid adopting masonry tracks

This could be supported with a separate masonry specification, again with the proviso that mixed intrinsic and fixed sized tracks are disallowed. Exactly what that looks like will need to be defined. We see no reason that this wouldn't work.

We would love to get to a point of a specification that can be shipped interoperably. However, we want to do that in a way that works well now and in the future, and that can be relied upon by developers. The only way to deal with the performance issues outlined, would be to make the second issue—that of having parts of grid illegal in masonry—worse. We don't think that's a good solution, especially when it's possible to have all the grid features you want while keeping the things that are different clearly separated.

If you have any feedback, join the discussion in Issue 9041 .

Thanks to Bramus, Tab Atkins-Bittner, Una Kravets, Ian Kilpatrick, and Chris Harrelson for review of this post and the discussions that informed it.

Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License , and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License . For details, see the Google Developers Site Policies . Java is a registered trademark of Oracle and/or its affiliates.

Last updated 2024-04-30 UTC.

Large-area single-crystal TMD growth modulated by sapphire substrates

* Corresponding authors

a Department of Applied Physics, School of Physics, Xi'an Jiaotong University, People's Republic of China E-mail: xiamg@ mail.xjtu.edu.cn

b MOE Key Laboratory for Nonequilibrium Synthesis and Modulation of Condensed Matter, School of Physics, Xi'an Jiaotong University, People's Republic of China

c Shaanxi Province Key Laboratory of Quantum Information and Optoelectronic Quantum Devices, School of Physics, Xi'an Jiaotong University, People's Republic of China

Transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) have recently attracted extensive attention due to their unique physical and chemical properties; however, the preparation of large-area TMD single crystals is still a great challenge. Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) is an effective method to synthesize large-area and high-quality TMD films, in which sapphires as suitable substrates play a crucial role in anchoring the source material, promoting nucleation and modulating epitaxial growth. In this review, we provide an insightful overview of different epitaxial mechanisms and growth behaviors associated with the atomic structure of sapphire surfaces and the growth parameters. First, we summarize three epitaxial growth mechanisms of TMDs on sapphire substrates, namely, van der Waals epitaxy, step-guided epitaxy, and dual-coupling-guided epitaxy. Second, we introduce the effects of polishing, cutting, and annealing processing of the sapphire surface on the TMD growth. Finally, we discuss the influence of other growth parameters, such as temperature, pressure, carrier gas, and substrate position, on the growth kinetics of TMDs. This review might provide deep insights into the controllable growth of large-area single-crystal TMDs on sapphires, which will propel their practical applications in high-performance nanoelectronics and optoelectronics.

• This article is part of the themed collection: Recent Review Articles

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

L. Chen, Z. Cheng, S. He, X. Zhang, K. Deng, D. Zong, Z. Wu and M. Xia, Nanoscale , 2024,  16 , 978 DOI: 10.1039/D3NR05400D

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author, advertisements.