The purpose of the Article Reviews is to demonstrate that you have read and really understood the article. You should be able to state in very general terms what the article is about and also be able to recount the details of the argument(s) contained in the article. I place a premium on clarity of exposition, well-constructed sentences and paragraphs, and perfect spelling. (Avoid sentence fragments at all costs. Use a spell-checker if possible but don't let that substitute for a careful proof-reading.) If your command of the English language might not pass a sobriety test, it might help to study Chapter One of Strunk and White, The Elements of Style (available worldwide). Just reading the Table of Contents is likely to be informative. Also valuable is Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Argument. You may borrow my copies. Strunk and White is surely available at the bookstore for other courses. There are many other useful grammar books. Or go to the Writing Center downstairs.

Here is the proper structure for article reviews. The first paragraph should be a single sentence which states, as informatively, succinctly, and concisely as possible, the main point of the article. Be sure to say something substantive; don't make a vacuous claim like "Williamson discusses fourteen possible interpretations of Rawls’s THEORY OF JUSTICE and defends the one he thinks is the best." The reader learns nothing. Instead, tell me which interpretation the author favors (and why. Example: "Williamson defends the XYZ interpretation of THEORY OF JUSTICE on the grounds that that interpretation requires the least controversial assumptions about the nature of justice." Length: several lines. No semi-colons allowed (that’s cheating).The best way to begin the sentence: "XXX argues that . . . ."

In the next (second) paragraph, which may be normal-sized (i.e., not more than half a page), you should explain in more detail the general structure of the article (and its argument). Perhaps it would help to pretend you are the author and are writing an abstract for it (as many journals require). Abstracts usually must be 150 words or less.

In the rest of the review, you should explain in detail the main points of the article. Start with the most important idea (which is not necessarily what the author starts with) and work downward (toward the less important ideas).

(1) Think in terms of paragraphs. Paragraphs do not--at least for y'all--exceed half a page and are usually closer to 1/4 of a double-spaced page. A paragraph should be limited to one complete idea (or argument). Don't write run-on paragraphs. Be sure to have a good theme sentence (or whatever the first sentence is called).

(2) The order in which you present the author's ideas and arguments will often not be the same as the order in which he or she presents them. Since you have very limited space, and since you want the most important ideas to go first, you may have to rearrange the author's order of presentation.

(3) Imagine that you will read your review in class and that you may be interrupted at any moment by someone with a question--and you never get to finish reading it. But your grade depends on what you said, and how well you said it, up until you were interrupted. What ideas do you want to make sure get included? What ideas/arguments can wait until the end?

(4) It is harder to write something short than something long. That is why I have strict length limits. I imagine that you will need to write a rough draft that is close to six or seven pages and then edit it.

(5) Avoid boring sentences--sentences that don't say anything, that are just "treading water." Make sure every sentence is informative and is indispensable to the coherence of your review. Ruthlessly editing what you have written (as a rough draft) is the key to good writing. Turning in the first thing you write--your first draft--will maximize the probability of getting a poor grade (because it will maximize the likelihood of writing a poor review).

(6) You may find it helpful to combine sentences in order to avoid repetitious wording. Example: "Williamson defends four controversial claims regarding the motivation of the parties in the original position. His first controversial claim regarding their motivation is . . . ." How would you fix this?

(7) I would be shocked if you can complete this assignment satisfactorily in a single evening, even if you have read the article previously.

(8) Since the key to good writing is rewriting, there is no better way to improve your writing than to let it sit for a couple of days between writing and rewriting. What seemed clear and lucid when you first wrote it will often reveal itself to be murky and muddled two or three days later. Especially if you had been smoking a joint (medical marijuana) while writing it originally.

(9) Do not plagiarize. See Student Handbook.

(10) Turn your work in on time.

(11) Turn in work that you can be--and are--proud of. (See #8 above.)

(12) Students occasionally ask me for a letter of recommendation (e.g., for law school, for a Ph.D.). If you might be one of those students, make sure that the work you do for this course will earn you a positive recommendation.

(13) Let me beg one more time: please turn in work befitting an intelligent and conscientious college student. (In the immortal words of former President Haragan at Commencement (years ago): "Don't settle for second best!") At a minimum, before you print your final copy of the review, read it carefully, paying attention to the quality of your writing. Are your sentences well-constructed? Are there words that may possibly be misspelled? Are your paragraphs well-organized or are they pretty much "stream of consciousness"? Is it clear what the point of each paragraph is supposed to be? I have no objection to your showing your review to someone in the Writing Lab for suggestions and corrections.

AR#1: Length: 1900 words (+/– 100 words). Write in Times New Roman 11 or Arial 10, to make me happy.

Title: At the top of the page, put the full citation (see above) for the article and then "Article Review by [your name]"; under that, put the date. That’s it.

Late Penalties: After 12:00 on Monday, minus 1/2 point; after 5 p.m., minus 1 point; after Noon on Tuesday, minus 2 points. After that you better have a chat with me about what's taking so long. Don't assume I will accept your review. If you think you can write it the night (or even the day) before it is due, I kind of doubt it. If it were that easy, I wouldn’t assign it. What doesn’t kill you will make you stronger.