Guidelines for Critiques:

1. Length is minimum 400 words, maximum 550 words plus a cover page.
2. All text must be double-spaced.
3. All margins must be 1 inch (2.5 cm).
4. Font size should be 12.
5. Include cover page with student name and Student number.
6. Use APA referencing style.
7. Must additionally refer at least two other papers per critique.

The content of the critiques can be divided roughly into four parts: a brief synopsis of the paper,
comments on the strengths of the paper, comments on the weaknesses that could be improved,
and a section in which you outline key findings or issues that you have learned from the paper.
Here are some questions you can consider as you prepare the critique of the paper:

Strengths
1. Is the article well written and easily understood with clear objectives and
reasonable conclusions?
2. Does the author(s) address a tangible problem in society and provide an
insightful discussion?
3. Does the author(s) present convincing data and other evidence to support
their position?
4. Is the methodology technically sound and appropriate for the data collected?
5. Does the author(s) make a useful contribution to the knowledge of
transportation and could it have long term value?
6. Does the author(s) make good use of the diagrams, figures or data to support
their arguments? Are any missing, that should be there?
7. Do the conclusions flow from the material presented in the paper?
8. How could the paper be made even stronger?
Weaknesses
1. Is the article well written and easily understood with clear objectives and
reasonable conclusions?
2. Does the author(s) address a tangible problem in society and provide an
insightful discussion?
3. Does the author(s) present convincing data and other evidence to support
their position?
4. Is the methodology technically sound and appropriate for the data collected?
5. Does the author(s) make a useful contribution to the knowledge of
transportation and could it have long term value?
6. Does the author(s) make good use of the diagrams, figures or data to support
their arguments? Are any missing, that should be there?
7. Do the conclusions flow from the material presented in the paper?
8. How would you recommend that the author(s) could improve the paper?
What did you learn?
This is your opportunity to assess the intrinsic value of the paper from your own
perspective.
What surprised you most?
Did anything challenge your prior impressions?
Did you learn anything about organizing a paper, or what to avoid?
Are you convinced by the analysis, or skeptical of its validity?