ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES

FAR 705 · Writing an article

Amieke Meyer (17008094) · Huzaifa Khan (16195168)

Learners should prepare for the session by analyzing the three articles in conjunction with the lecture
notes, and then completing the following activities.

ARTICLE 1: PARVATHY AND UMAMASHESHWARI, 2007

GOOD ASPECTS:
Abstract
 Only 4 keywords used (max is usually 5)
 Keywords are relevant and easy to track
 Abstract is concise with adequate detail added
Introduction
 In the introduction they started off by stating what is already known and informing us
about the gaps that they are aiming to fill with their research.
 Up to date literature about the topic is provided in the introduction.
 Introduction is logical and proceeds in a manner that is easy to understand
 Layout of introduction makes information easy to read and understand.
Methods
 Written in past tense
 The use of sub-headings helps to structure and organize the methods and the use of
full sentences (no bullet points) makes it clear to understand and follow.
 Apparatus and reagents (amount and concentration) clearly stated.
 Experiments are explained in enough detail to allow reproduction of tests.
Results
 Number of decimal places used in tables is kept constant.
 Only 2 lines are used per graph, preventing the graphs from looking overcrowded.
 Results are split into different components, according to experiment that allow for
easy analysis of obtained results.
Discussion
 Discussion includes enough detail to be able to understand the results in context.
 Use of existing, supporting literature allows for more well-rounded understanding of
the study
Conclusion
 No good aspect due to lack of conclusion
References
 Adequate amount of literature consulted, from a variety of journals within a large
timeframe

BAD ASPECTS:
Abstract
 Key words are not listed in alphabetical order
 Abstract may be too technical, containing unnecessary results that should be explained
later.
  Not very easy to understand
Introduction
 Too much of detail on moringa tree, added unnecessarily
Methods
 The Neutral red uptake assay not referenced to be followed.
 Extremely detailed tables that were not easily made sense of.
Results
 Tables not placed in the relevant area, with more information than is necessary.
Discussion
 Lacks a consistent and easy to analyze structure
Conclusion
 No conclusion in article
References
 References not numbered

GENERAL OPINION ON ARTICLE:

The tables and figures create some confusion and distort the structure of the overall article.
The layout isn’t consistent and makes the flow of the article hard to follow at times.

The article demonstrates good attention to detail and provides a methodology that is easy to
replicate, given the instructions provided. However, the discussion become incredibly difficult
to follow due to the way it was written, being condensed to the point that no information
stands out.

REFLECTION:
I have the tendency to add to much detail, will go back and have a look to ensure that the
information does not become irrelevant and unnecessary.

I also have the tendency to add in extra information and overpopulate articles for fear of not
having enough information, potentially overloading a reader.

ARTICLE 2: WIGGELINKHUIZEN ET AL. 2009

GOOD ASPECTS:
Abstract
 Words used in abstract does not exceed 200
 Abstract is structured with sub-headings
 Abstract summarizes the article effectively
Introduction
 The aim of the study is provided
 Short background provided
 Concise yet effective introduction that provides a strong foundation for the study

2
Methods
 Methods is written in past tense
 The use of sub-headings and prisma-diagram simplifies the process.
 Overall structure of methodology is logical and set up in a way that is easy to read.
Results
 Results of study expanded on in detail, following a flow that is easy to track and
understand
Discussion
 They stated that it was the first systematic review on the related topic.
 Discussion does a great job in explaining results, while also addressing problems in
study

Conclusion
 Not applicable as study has no conclusion

References
 Number of references indicates a detailed analysis of pre-existing literature.

BAD ASPECTS:
Abstract
 Key words absent
 Set up in a manner that is boring and unappealing
Introduction
 Formatting is not ideal, due to lack of paragraphs.

Methods
 Literature review should be narrowed down to a shorter time interval (exclude studies
that were not very recent)
 Lack of detail in explaining methodology
 No referencing done
Results
 Results section of study is very busy, with no direction, making reading, understanding
and interpretation very difficult.

Discussion
 Lacking paragraphs and proper formatting
 Tables are not easy to refer to as they are in a different area of the article.

Conclusion
 Complete lack of a conclusion

References
 References set up in configuration that is very difficult to understand.
 Too many references used

GENERAL OPINION ON ARTICLE:

I thought the article was good, the layout was easy to follow and the use of Prisma diagram

3
 made it easy to understand the bigger picture.

While the article was written in a way that conveyed all the reviewed information in an
adequate manner, this article is an example of bias, due to language. The authors complain
about all literature being concerned with the same population, but unknowingly caused this by
eliminating all data in other languages, except a few. This article could have been written
better.

REFLECTION:
I made use of too many references myself.

This paper makes me realize ow easy it is to skew data by eliminating literature without
checking it first. I will be sure to be more critical of literature I am consulting before I decide to
ignore the data it contains.

ARTICLE 3: YENESEW ET AL. 2015

GOOD ASPECTS:
Abstract
 Sub-headings help improve the structure
 Contains problem statement, aim, methods, main findings and conclusion (only few
sentences on each)
 Easy to follow the flow of the abstract
 Effective keywords used
Introduction
 Aim of the study is clearly stated
 Full word used for the first time with abbreviation in brackets.
 Introduction explains the background and foundation of the study well.
Methods
 Written in past tense
 Methods include a statistical section
 Methodology split into different subsections, with brief, concise elaboration within
each.
Results
 Figures and tables are used to make interpretation of results easier. Decimals used in
the table are kept constant tough out and the number of observations in graphs are
clearly indicated.
 Results explained in great detail, with a logical movement from one data point to the
next.
Discussion
 Findings are discussed and compared to other studies
 Results explained in detail, using actual figures rather than estimates.
Conclusion
 List of things that should be done in the future
 Significance in findings
 Conclusion ties up study in an effective way while also acknowledging limitations and
4
 shortfalls.
References
 Ideal amount of referencing in order to get enough background, but not too much that
the point of the study gets lost.

BAD ASPECTS:
Abstract
 Abstract is very vague and is not written in a way that attracts attention

Introduction
 A few errors in terms of the writing of the article
 Layout makes the introduction difficult to follow.

Methods
 More detail can be provided on what type of questions the questionnaire entails.
 Lacks details and adequate explanations of different parts of methodology, making
study hard to replicate.

Results
 Do not repeat values given in table in words to avoid repetition.
 Tables are referred to while being placed in an unrelated area.

Discussion
 The discussion paragraph is interrupted by the layout creating some confusion
 Tables are unnecessarily extensive and condensed in a manner that resembles
disarray.

Conclusion
 Take home message not stated clearly.
 Conclusion is too long and should be more to the point.

References
 Not all literature consulted is up to date and may not be applicable in current times.

GENERAL OPINION ON ARTICLE:

The article has a lot of space for improvement, the whole article feels a bit scattered and the
focus is shifted away from the methodology making it hard to understand.

This article could have been written in a more cohesive, binding way that shows relationships
between data points being reviewed. There was also opportunity to make the methodology
easier to follow, in order to better understand the results obtained.

REFLECTION:
Reevaluate grammar, because it plays such a big role in the general outcome / interpretation
of the article.

This article showed me the importance of a “Golden thread” which is something I will be more
aware of, in writing an article as it is easy to make the literature seem disconnected.
5
6