A scholarly desk with papers, books, and evaluation forms representing academic critique and analysis

Academic Content Critique Template

A comprehensive framework for scholarly paper analysis and evaluation

written by

Ted Tschopp

Academic Critique and Analysis: an image by

The “Academic Content Critique Template” is a comprehensive, structured framework designed for scholarly analysis and evaluation of academic papers, articles, and research content. This sophisticated prompt transforms users into academic reviewers, providing a systematic approach to critiquing scholarly work with professional standards and detailed analytical frameworks.

The template excels at:

Structured Academic Analysis with standardized sections (Introduction, Summary, Critique, Conclusion)
Customizable Focus Areas targeting specific aspects like methodology, evidence quality, and theoretical frameworks
Professional Citation Standards supporting multiple academic styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, IEEE, Vancouver)
Scalable Depth Levels from brief overviews to expert-level comprehensive evaluations
Optional Grading Rubric with detailed scoring criteria and feedback mechanisms
Educational Framework following established academic critique standards and critical thinking principles
This tool is ideal for educators, researchers, peer reviewers, graduate students, and academic professionals who need to conduct rigorous, consistent, and constructive evaluations of scholarly work.

Writing Documentation Communications

Act as an academic reviewer and critique the content provided using\
\ the following structured template. Focus your analysis on {{critique_focus}} and\
\ follow {{citation_style}} citation standards throughout your critique.\n\n**Critique\
\ Level:** {{critique_depth}}\n**Paper Title:** {{paper_title}}\n**Author(s):**\
\ {{author_names}}\n\n## Introduction\n\n<Purpose>\n* Clearly introduce the critique\
\ by summarizing the paper's identity and key message.\n* State explicitly the main\
\ point or argument presented by the original author.\n* Present a clear thesis\
\ statement outlining what the critique aims to cover or analyze.\n\n<Instructions>\n\
* Identify and state the full name(s) of the paper's author(s) exactly as listed\
\ on the paper.\n* Provide the complete, accurately formatted title of the article\
\ being critiqued.\n* Succinctly describe the author's primary argument or central\
\ idea in your own words.\n* Write a concise, direct thesis statement that previews\
\ the aspects or criteria your critique will address (e.g., methods, logic, evidence,\
\ implications).\n\n<Example>\nIn the article \"Artificial Intelligence and Ethical\
\ Decision-Making,\" authors Jane Doe and John Smith argue that AI systems must\
\ integrate clear ethical frameworks to effectively support human decisions. This\
\ critique evaluates the authors' methodology, use of supporting evidence, and practical\
\ applicability of their proposed ethical guidelines, highlighting strengths and\
\ identifying areas needing further development.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n* Full name(s)\
\ of the paper's author(s).\n* Exact title of the paper.\n* Clear understanding\
\ of the main argument or thesis presented by the author(s).\n* Defined criteria\
\ or points you plan to analyze within your critique.\n <Standards>\n* {{citation_style}}\
\ (American Psychological Association) style for author citation and article titles.\n\
* MLA (Modern Language Association) style as an alternative if appropriate for humanities\
\ critiques.\n* General academic standards require that introductions provide clear\
\ attribution, concise thesis statements, and sufficient context to understand the\
\ subsequent analysis.\n ## Summary\n\n<Purpose>\n* Clearly introduce the critique\
\ by summarizing the paper\u2019s identity and key message.\n* State explicitly\
\ the main point or argument presented by the original author.\n* Present a clear\
\ thesis statement outlining what the critique aims to cover or analyze.\n\n<Instructions>\n\
* Identify and state the full name(s) of the paper\u2019s author(s) exactly as listed\
\ on the paper.\n* Provide the complete, accurately formatted title of the article\
\ being critiqued.\n* Succinctly describe the author\u2019s primary argument or\
\ central idea in your own words.\n* Write a concise, direct thesis statement that\
\ previews the aspects or criteria your critique will address (e.g., methods, logic,\
\ evidence, implications).\n\n<Example>\nIn the article \u201CArtificial Intelligence\
\ and Ethical Decision-Making,\u201D authors Jane Doe and John Smith argue that\
\ AI systems must integrate clear ethical frameworks to effectively support human\
\ decisions. This critique evaluates the authors\u2019 methodology, use of supporting\
\ evidence, and practical applicability of their proposed ethical guidelines, highlighting\
\ strengths and identifying areas needing further development.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n\
* Full name(s) of the paper\u2019s author(s).\n* Exact title of the paper.\n* Clear\
\ understanding of the main argument or thesis presented by the author(s).\n* Defined\
\ criteria or points you plan to analyze within your critique.\n\n<Standards>\n\
* APA (American Psychological Association) style for author citation and article\
\ titles.\n* MLA (Modern Language Association) style as an alternative if appropriate\
\ for humanities critiques.\n* General academic standards require that introductions\
\ provide clear attribution, concise thesis statements, and sufficient context to\
\ understand the subsequent analysis.\n\n## Summary\n\n<Purpose>\n* Clearly and\
\ objectively summarize the primary points, arguments, and findings presented by\
\ the author(s).\n* Provide readers with essential context to understand the paper\
\ without personal opinion or analysis.\n\n<Instructions>\n* Restate the article\u2019\
s main points clearly, without injecting your interpretation or critique.\n* Identify\
\ and clearly describe the central arguments or claims made by the author(s).\n\
* Clearly state the key findings or conclusions reached in the article.\n* Use your\
\ own words to summarize\u2014avoid direct quotations unless necessary.\n\n<Example>\n\
Doe and Smith\u2019s article, \u201CArtificial Intelligence and Ethical Decision-Making,\u201D\
\ explores how AI systems can effectively integrate ethical principles into decision-making\
\ processes. The authors argue that clear, practical ethical guidelines are necessary\
\ for AI to safely support human decisions, especially in high-stakes fields like\
\ healthcare and autonomous transportation. They provide examples from existing\
\ systems and identify gaps in current AI ethics approaches. Key findings include\
\ identifying critical components of ethical AI, such as transparency, accountability,\
\ and continuous human oversight.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n* Accurate understanding of\
\ the article\u2019s key points.\n* The author\u2019s main arguments clearly identified.\n\
* Explicitly stated results, conclusions, or recommendations from the original article.\n\
\n<Standards>\n* APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines for summarizing\
\ scholarly sources.\n* General scholarly standards that emphasize objectivity,\
\ clarity, completeness, and conciseness in summarization.\n* IEEE and ACM guidelines\
\ for accurately and succinctly summarizing technical content.\n\n## Critique\n\n\
<Purpose>\n* Clearly analyze and evaluate the article\u2019s strengths and weaknesses.\n\
* Offer informed, evidence-based opinions about the article\u2019s clarity, relevance,\
\ and accuracy.\n* Provide detailed examples from the article to support critical\
\ judgments.\n\n<Instructions>\n* Identify and clearly describe specific strengths\
\ of the article, such as effective arguments, clear writing, thorough research,\
\ or insightful conclusions.\n* Identify and clearly describe specific weaknesses,\
\ including unclear points, logical fallacies, unsupported claims, or insufficient\
\ evidence.\n* Explicitly state your informed views on the article\u2019s:\n* Clarity:\
\ Is the content clearly expressed and easily understandable?\n* Relevance: Is the\
\ information meaningful and applicable to the intended audience or current scholarly/professional\
\ context?\n* Accuracy: Is the information supported by evidence, correctly interpreted,\
\ and factual?\n* Support each opinion with clear, specific examples directly cited\
\ or paraphrased from the article.\n\n<Example>\nThe article by Jane Doe and John\
\ Smith demonstrates notable strengths, particularly in its clear presentation of\
\ ethical frameworks for artificial intelligence. The authors effectively clarify\
\ complex ethical theories by providing concrete examples, such as the detailed\
\ case study of autonomous vehicle decision-making (Doe & Smith, 2024, p. 12). However,\
\ a primary weakness lies in the limited empirical evidence supporting the efficacy\
\ of their proposed guidelines. The authors claim substantial industry applicability\
\ yet only cite anecdotal evidence from two organizations, reducing the overall\
\ reliability and relevance of their findings (p. 15-16). While generally clear,\
\ some critical terms like \u201Cethical risk\u201D were used repeatedly without\
\ adequate initial definition, somewhat reducing clarity for readers less familiar\
\ with ethical AI terminology (p. 7). Overall, the accuracy of presented data is\
\ commendable, with precise referencing to current research, though the narrow range\
\ of cited studies slightly weakens the comprehensive accuracy of the argument.\n\
\n<Prerequisites>\n* A careful reading of the article, noting significant points\
\ that stand out as strengths or weaknesses.\n* Identification of specific elements\
\ (arguments, evidence, examples) to evaluate in terms of clarity, relevance, and\
\ accuracy.\n* Direct quotations or clearly paraphrased content from the original\
\ article to serve as evidence supporting your evaluations.\n* Citation details\
\ (author name, year, page numbers) from the original source.\n\n<Standards>\n*\
\ APA (American Psychological Association) standards for accurately citing direct\
\ quotations, paraphrases, and summarizing content.\n* General academic critique\
\ standards that emphasize balanced evaluation (positive and negative), evidence-supported\
\ opinions, and clear reasoning.\n* International Critical Thinking Standards (Paul-Elder\
\ Framework), emphasizing precision, relevance, logic, depth, accuracy, clarity,\
\ fairness, and breadth.\n\n## Conclusion\n\n<Purpose>\n* Summarize the critical\
\ points from both the original article and your critique analysis clearly and concisely.\n\
* Provide a closing perspective highlighting the significance of the research or\
\ recommend future research opportunities.\n\n<Instructions>\n* Briefly restate\
\ the author\u2019s main arguments or findings.\n* Concisely summarize your critique\u2019\
s key evaluations (both strengths and weaknesses) of the article.\n* Clearly articulate\
\ why the research matters or identify specific gaps that future research should\
\ address.\n* Ensure your conclusion is concise and leaves the reader with a clear\
\ understanding of the critique\u2019s value and the article\u2019s contribution\
\ to the field.\n\n<Example>\nIn summary, Doe and Smith\u2019s article \u201CArtificial\
\ Intelligence and Ethical Decision-Making\u201D presents a meaningful framework\
\ for integrating ethics into AI systems, effectively simplifying complex ethical\
\ considerations. However, the critique identified significant limitations, particularly\
\ the insufficient empirical evidence to support broad applicability. Despite these\
\ issues, the article significantly contributes to ongoing discussions about ethical\
\ AI by clearly addressing theoretical gaps and real-world scenarios. Future research\
\ should focus on extensive empirical validation of the proposed ethical guidelines,\
\ examining their practical effectiveness across diverse AI applications.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n\
* Key points and arguments from the original article.\n* Main strengths and weaknesses\
\ from your critique.\n* Insights into the importance of the research or identification\
\ of critical research gaps for future exploration.\n\n<Standards>\n* APA (American\
\ Psychological Association) standards for concise summarization and clarity in\
\ academic writing.\n* General standards for writing scholarly conclusions, emphasizing\
\ brevity, relevance, forward-looking statements, and contextual significance.\n\
* IEEE and ACM guidelines for summarizing and stating the significance of research\
\ clearly in professional critiques, especially within technical and scientific\
\ domains.\n\n## Grading Rubric\n\n<Purpose>\n\nThis rubric is designed to provide\
\ consistent, fair, and actionable evaluations of written papers. Each criterion\
\ is scored separately using a detailed scale. Final grades are calculated based\
\ on total points. Specific comments should be provided for each section.\n\n<Instructions>\
\ \n\n1. **Read the Paper Thoroughly:** Read the entire paper before scoring to\
\ get a holistic sense of the argument, structure, and style.\n2. **Score Each Criterion\
\ Independently:** Use the descriptors in each level to assign a score (0\u2013\
4) for every criterion. Refer to the detailed level descriptors to avoid bias.\n\
3. **Justify Scores with Comments:** For each criterion, write a brief comment explaining\
\ the score, pointing out specific strengths and areas for improvement.\n4. **Calculate\
\ the Total Score:** Add up scores for each criterion for a final grade.\n5. **Provide\
\ Overall Feedback:** Offer a concise summary at the end\u2014highlighting major\
\ strengths, significant weaknesses, and actionable next steps.\n6. **Maintain Consistency:**\
\ Use the descriptors as your guide. When unsure, consult with another grader or\
\ refer to exemplar papers.\n\n### Overall Feedback\n\n*(Write 3\u20135 sentences\
\ summarizing overall strengths, areas for improvement, and suggestions for next\
\ steps.)*\n\n### Scoring Scale\n\n* **4 \u2013 Excellent:** Exceeds expectations;\
\ exemplary work\n* **3 \u2013 Good:** Meets expectations; minor errors\n* **2 \u2013\
\ Satisfactory:** Adequate; some noticeable issues\n* **1 \u2013 Needs Improvement:**\
\ Significant weaknesses\n* **0 \u2013 Unacceptable:** Does not address the criterion\n\
\n### Criteria\n\n| Criterion                                     | 4 - Excellent\
\                                                        | 3 - Good            \
\                             | 2 - Satisfactory                               \
\      | 1 - Needs Improvement                            | 0 - Unacceptable   \
\              |\n| --------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------\
\ | ------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------\
\ | ------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------\
\ |\n| **Thesis & Purpose**                          | Clear, original, well-stated\
\ thesis; focus maintained throughout     | Clear thesis; mostly maintained focus\
\            | Thesis present but unclear or not maintained         | Weak, unfocused,\
\ or off-topic thesis             | No thesis or purpose             |\n| **Structure\
\ & Organization**                  | Logical, seamless flow; strong intro/conclusion;\
\ clear transitions   | Mostly logical flow; effective intro/conclusion  | Organization\
\ is present but inconsistent             | Disorganized; unclear sections; weak\
\ transitions | No logical structure             |\n| **Evidence & Support**   \
\                     | Comprehensive, relevant, well-integrated evidence; critical\
\ analysis | Good evidence; generally relevant and integrated | Adequate evidence;\
\ sometimes underdeveloped          | Weak or minimal evidence; little analysis\
\        | No evidence/support              |\n| **Analysis & Insight**        \
\                | Deep, original analysis; shows strong understanding & synthesis\
\      | Good analysis; shows understanding               | Some analysis but lacks\
\ depth                        | Superficial, summary only                     \
\   | No analysis/insight              |\n| **Clarity & Style**                \
\           | Highly readable; precise, engaging language; strong academic voice\
\   | Mostly clear; appropriate style                  | Understandable but sometimes\
\ vague or awkward        | Hard to follow; inappropriate tone/style         | Unreadable\
\ or inappropriate      |\n| **Mechanics (Grammar, Spelling, Formatting)** | Error-free;\
\ follows required formatting perfectly                    | Few errors; formatting\
\ mostly correct            | Some errors; distract but don\u2019t impede understanding\
\ | Frequent errors; hard to read                    | Excessive errors; unreadable\
\     |\n| **Use of Sources / Citations**                | All sources well-chosen,\
\ cited correctly, integrated smoothly        | Mostly correct citations, generally\
\ well-chosen  | Some citation errors or weak sources                 | Poor use\
\ of sources, many errors                 | No citations or clear plagiarism |\n\
\n### Scoring Sheet Template\n\n| Criterion                  | Score (0\u20134)\
\ | Comment (Required) |\n| -------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------\
\ |\n| Thesis & Purpose           |             |                    |\n| Structure\
\ & Organization   |             |                    |\n| Evidence & Support  \
\       |             |                    |\n| Analysis & Insight         |   \
\          |                    |\n| Clarity & Style            |             |\
\                    |\n| Mechanics                  |             |           \
\         |\n| Use of Sources / Citations |             |                    |\n\
| **Total**                  |             |                    |\n\n### Customization\
\ Options\n\n* **Weighting:** Adjust weights if some criteria are more important\
\ (e.g., double weight for Evidence & Support).\n* **Discipline-Specific Criteria:**\
\ Add elements relevant to your context (e.g., creativity for a narrative, technical\
\ accuracy for a science report).\n* **Holistic Grading:** Optionally provide an\
\ overall holistic score for special assignments.\n\n<Example>\n\n| Criterion  \
\              | Score | Comment                                              |\n\
| ------------------------ | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------\
\ |\n| Thesis & Purpose         | 4     | Clear, original thesis; maintains focus\
\ throughout   |\n| Structure & Organization | 3     | Mostly logical flow, minor\
\ issues in transitions     |\n| Evidence & Support       | 2     | Some evidence\
\ not directly linked to thesis          |\n| Analysis & Insight       | 3     |\
\ Good analysis; could be deeper in final section      |\n| Clarity & Style    \
\      | 4     | Engaging, academic style, very readable              |\n| Mechanics\
\                | 4     | Nearly error-free                                   \
\ |\n| Use of Sources/Citations | 3     | Minor citation errors, otherwise well-chosen\
\ sources |\n| **Total**                | 23    |                              \
\                        |

<Standards>

* **AAC\&U VALUE Rubrics** (American Association of Colleges & Universities)
* **APA / MLA / Chicago Style Guidelines**
* **Bloom's Taxonomy for Critical Thinking**

Act as an academic reviewer and critique the content provided using\
\ the following structured template. Focus your analysis on {{critique_focus}} and\
\ follow {{citation_style}} citation standards throughout your critique.\n\n**Critique\
\ Level:** {{critique_depth}}\n**Paper Title:** {{paper_title}}\n**Author(s):**\
\ {{author_names}}\n\n## Introduction\n\n<Purpose>\n* Clearly introduce the critique\
\ by summarizing the paper's identity and key message.\n* State explicitly the main\
\ point or argument presented by the original author.\n* Present a clear thesis\
\ statement outlining what the critique aims to cover or analyze.\n\n<Instructions>\n\
* Identify and state the full name(s) of the paper's author(s) exactly as listed\
\ on the paper.\n* Provide the complete, accurately formatted title of the article\
\ being critiqued.\n* Succinctly describe the author's primary argument or central\
\ idea in your own words.\n* Write a concise, direct thesis statement that previews\
\ the aspects or criteria your critique will address (e.g., methods, logic, evidence,\
\ implications).\n\n<Example>\nIn the article \"Artificial Intelligence and Ethical\
\ Decision-Making,\" authors Jane Doe and John Smith argue that AI systems must\
\ integrate clear ethical frameworks to effectively support human decisions. This\
\ critique evaluates the authors' methodology, use of supporting evidence, and practical\
\ applicability of their proposed ethical guidelines, highlighting strengths and\
\ identifying areas needing further development.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n* Full name(s)\
\ of the paper's author(s).\n* Exact title of the paper.\n* Clear understanding\
\ of the main argument or thesis presented by the author(s).\n* Defined criteria\
\ or points you plan to analyze within your critique.\n <Standards>\n* {{citation_style}}\
\ (American Psychological Association) style for author citation and article titles.\n\
* MLA (Modern Language Association) style as an alternative if appropriate for humanities\
\ critiques.\n* General academic standards require that introductions provide clear\
\ attribution, concise thesis statements, and sufficient context to understand the\
\ subsequent analysis.\n ## Summary\n\n<Purpose>\n* Clearly introduce the critique\
\ by summarizing the paper\u2019s identity and key message.\n* State explicitly\
\ the main point or argument presented by the original author.\n* Present a clear\
\ thesis statement outlining what the critique aims to cover or analyze.\n\n<Instructions>\n\
* Identify and state the full name(s) of the paper\u2019s author(s) exactly as listed\
\ on the paper.\n* Provide the complete, accurately formatted title of the article\
\ being critiqued.\n* Succinctly describe the author\u2019s primary argument or\
\ central idea in your own words.\n* Write a concise, direct thesis statement that\
\ previews the aspects or criteria your critique will address (e.g., methods, logic,\
\ evidence, implications).\n\n<Example>\nIn the article \u201CArtificial Intelligence\
\ and Ethical Decision-Making,\u201D authors Jane Doe and John Smith argue that\
\ AI systems must integrate clear ethical frameworks to effectively support human\
\ decisions. This critique evaluates the authors\u2019 methodology, use of supporting\
\ evidence, and practical applicability of their proposed ethical guidelines, highlighting\
\ strengths and identifying areas needing further development.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n\
* Full name(s) of the paper\u2019s author(s).\n* Exact title of the paper.\n* Clear\
\ understanding of the main argument or thesis presented by the author(s).\n* Defined\
\ criteria or points you plan to analyze within your critique.\n\n<Standards>\n\
* APA (American Psychological Association) style for author citation and article\
\ titles.\n* MLA (Modern Language Association) style as an alternative if appropriate\
\ for humanities critiques.\n* General academic standards require that introductions\
\ provide clear attribution, concise thesis statements, and sufficient context to\
\ understand the subsequent analysis.\n\n## Summary\n\n<Purpose>\n* Clearly and\
\ objectively summarize the primary points, arguments, and findings presented by\
\ the author(s).\n* Provide readers with essential context to understand the paper\
\ without personal opinion or analysis.\n\n<Instructions>\n* Restate the article\u2019\
s main points clearly, without injecting your interpretation or critique.\n* Identify\
\ and clearly describe the central arguments or claims made by the author(s).\n\
* Clearly state the key findings or conclusions reached in the article.\n* Use your\
\ own words to summarize\u2014avoid direct quotations unless necessary.\n\n<Example>\n\
Doe and Smith\u2019s article, \u201CArtificial Intelligence and Ethical Decision-Making,\u201D\
\ explores how AI systems can effectively integrate ethical principles into decision-making\
\ processes. The authors argue that clear, practical ethical guidelines are necessary\
\ for AI to safely support human decisions, especially in high-stakes fields like\
\ healthcare and autonomous transportation. They provide examples from existing\
\ systems and identify gaps in current AI ethics approaches. Key findings include\
\ identifying critical components of ethical AI, such as transparency, accountability,\
\ and continuous human oversight.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n* Accurate understanding of\
\ the article\u2019s key points.\n* The author\u2019s main arguments clearly identified.\n\
* Explicitly stated results, conclusions, or recommendations from the original article.\n\
\n<Standards>\n* APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines for summarizing\
\ scholarly sources.\n* General scholarly standards that emphasize objectivity,\
\ clarity, completeness, and conciseness in summarization.\n* IEEE and ACM guidelines\
\ for accurately and succinctly summarizing technical content.\n\n## Critique\n\n\
<Purpose>\n* Clearly analyze and evaluate the article\u2019s strengths and weaknesses.\n\
* Offer informed, evidence-based opinions about the article\u2019s clarity, relevance,\
\ and accuracy.\n* Provide detailed examples from the article to support critical\
\ judgments.\n\n<Instructions>\n* Identify and clearly describe specific strengths\
\ of the article, such as effective arguments, clear writing, thorough research,\
\ or insightful conclusions.\n* Identify and clearly describe specific weaknesses,\
\ including unclear points, logical fallacies, unsupported claims, or insufficient\
\ evidence.\n* Explicitly state your informed views on the article\u2019s:\n* Clarity:\
\ Is the content clearly expressed and easily understandable?\n* Relevance: Is the\
\ information meaningful and applicable to the intended audience or current scholarly/professional\
\ context?\n* Accuracy: Is the information supported by evidence, correctly interpreted,\
\ and factual?\n* Support each opinion with clear, specific examples directly cited\
\ or paraphrased from the article.\n\n<Example>\nThe article by Jane Doe and John\
\ Smith demonstrates notable strengths, particularly in its clear presentation of\
\ ethical frameworks for artificial intelligence. The authors effectively clarify\
\ complex ethical theories by providing concrete examples, such as the detailed\
\ case study of autonomous vehicle decision-making (Doe & Smith, 2024, p. 12). However,\
\ a primary weakness lies in the limited empirical evidence supporting the efficacy\
\ of their proposed guidelines. The authors claim substantial industry applicability\
\ yet only cite anecdotal evidence from two organizations, reducing the overall\
\ reliability and relevance of their findings (p. 15-16). While generally clear,\
\ some critical terms like \u201Cethical risk\u201D were used repeatedly without\
\ adequate initial definition, somewhat reducing clarity for readers less familiar\
\ with ethical AI terminology (p. 7). Overall, the accuracy of presented data is\
\ commendable, with precise referencing to current research, though the narrow range\
\ of cited studies slightly weakens the comprehensive accuracy of the argument.\n\
\n<Prerequisites>\n* A careful reading of the article, noting significant points\
\ that stand out as strengths or weaknesses.\n* Identification of specific elements\
\ (arguments, evidence, examples) to evaluate in terms of clarity, relevance, and\
\ accuracy.\n* Direct quotations or clearly paraphrased content from the original\
\ article to serve as evidence supporting your evaluations.\n* Citation details\
\ (author name, year, page numbers) from the original source.\n\n<Standards>\n*\
\ APA (American Psychological Association) standards for accurately citing direct\
\ quotations, paraphrases, and summarizing content.\n* General academic critique\
\ standards that emphasize balanced evaluation (positive and negative), evidence-supported\
\ opinions, and clear reasoning.\n* International Critical Thinking Standards (Paul-Elder\
\ Framework), emphasizing precision, relevance, logic, depth, accuracy, clarity,\
\ fairness, and breadth.\n\n## Conclusion\n\n<Purpose>\n* Summarize the critical\
\ points from both the original article and your critique analysis clearly and concisely.\n\
* Provide a closing perspective highlighting the significance of the research or\
\ recommend future research opportunities.\n\n<Instructions>\n* Briefly restate\
\ the author\u2019s main arguments or findings.\n* Concisely summarize your critique\u2019\
s key evaluations (both strengths and weaknesses) of the article.\n* Clearly articulate\
\ why the research matters or identify specific gaps that future research should\
\ address.\n* Ensure your conclusion is concise and leaves the reader with a clear\
\ understanding of the critique\u2019s value and the article\u2019s contribution\
\ to the field.\n\n<Example>\nIn summary, Doe and Smith\u2019s article \u201CArtificial\
\ Intelligence and Ethical Decision-Making\u201D presents a meaningful framework\
\ for integrating ethics into AI systems, effectively simplifying complex ethical\
\ considerations. However, the critique identified significant limitations, particularly\
\ the insufficient empirical evidence to support broad applicability. Despite these\
\ issues, the article significantly contributes to ongoing discussions about ethical\
\ AI by clearly addressing theoretical gaps and real-world scenarios. Future research\
\ should focus on extensive empirical validation of the proposed ethical guidelines,\
\ examining their practical effectiveness across diverse AI applications.\n\n<Prerequisites>\n\
* Key points and arguments from the original article.\n* Main strengths and weaknesses\
\ from your critique.\n* Insights into the importance of the research or identification\
\ of critical research gaps for future exploration.\n\n<Standards>\n* APA (American\
\ Psychological Association) standards for concise summarization and clarity in\
\ academic writing.\n* General standards for writing scholarly conclusions, emphasizing\
\ brevity, relevance, forward-looking statements, and contextual significance.\n\
* IEEE and ACM guidelines for summarizing and stating the significance of research\
\ clearly in professional critiques, especially within technical and scientific\
\ domains.\n\n## Grading Rubric\n\n<Purpose>\n\nThis rubric is designed to provide\
\ consistent, fair, and actionable evaluations of written papers. Each criterion\
\ is scored separately using a detailed scale. Final grades are calculated based\
\ on total points. Specific comments should be provided for each section.\n\n<Instructions>\
\ \n\n1. **Read the Paper Thoroughly:** Read the entire paper before scoring to\
\ get a holistic sense of the argument, structure, and style.\n2. **Score Each Criterion\
\ Independently:** Use the descriptors in each level to assign a score (0\u2013\
4) for every criterion. Refer to the detailed level descriptors to avoid bias.\n\
3. **Justify Scores with Comments:** For each criterion, write a brief comment explaining\
\ the score, pointing out specific strengths and areas for improvement.\n4. **Calculate\
\ the Total Score:** Add up scores for each criterion for a final grade.\n5. **Provide\
\ Overall Feedback:** Offer a concise summary at the end\u2014highlighting major\
\ strengths, significant weaknesses, and actionable next steps.\n6. **Maintain Consistency:**\
\ Use the descriptors as your guide. When unsure, consult with another grader or\
\ refer to exemplar papers.\n\n### Overall Feedback\n\n*(Write 3\u20135 sentences\
\ summarizing overall strengths, areas for improvement, and suggestions for next\
\ steps.)*\n\n### Scoring Scale\n\n* **4 \u2013 Excellent:** Exceeds expectations;\
\ exemplary work\n* **3 \u2013 Good:** Meets expectations; minor errors\n* **2 \u2013\
\ Satisfactory:** Adequate; some noticeable issues\n* **1 \u2013 Needs Improvement:**\
\ Significant weaknesses\n* **0 \u2013 Unacceptable:** Does not address the criterion\n\
\n### Criteria\n\n| Criterion                                     | 4 - Excellent\
\                                                        | 3 - Good            \
\                             | 2 - Satisfactory                               \
\      | 1 - Needs Improvement                            | 0 - Unacceptable   \
\              |\n| --------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------\
\ | ------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------\
\ | ------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------\
\ |\n| **Thesis & Purpose**                          | Clear, original, well-stated\
\ thesis; focus maintained throughout     | Clear thesis; mostly maintained focus\
\            | Thesis present but unclear or not maintained         | Weak, unfocused,\
\ or off-topic thesis             | No thesis or purpose             |\n| **Structure\
\ & Organization**                  | Logical, seamless flow; strong intro/conclusion;\
\ clear transitions   | Mostly logical flow; effective intro/conclusion  | Organization\
\ is present but inconsistent             | Disorganized; unclear sections; weak\
\ transitions | No logical structure             |\n| **Evidence & Support**   \
\                     | Comprehensive, relevant, well-integrated evidence; critical\
\ analysis | Good evidence; generally relevant and integrated | Adequate evidence;\
\ sometimes underdeveloped          | Weak or minimal evidence; little analysis\
\        | No evidence/support              |\n| **Analysis & Insight**        \
\                | Deep, original analysis; shows strong understanding & synthesis\
\      | Good analysis; shows understanding               | Some analysis but lacks\
\ depth                        | Superficial, summary only                     \
\   | No analysis/insight              |\n| **Clarity & Style**                \
\           | Highly readable; precise, engaging language; strong academic voice\
\   | Mostly clear; appropriate style                  | Understandable but sometimes\
\ vague or awkward        | Hard to follow; inappropriate tone/style         | Unreadable\
\ or inappropriate      |\n| **Mechanics (Grammar, Spelling, Formatting)** | Error-free;\
\ follows required formatting perfectly                    | Few errors; formatting\
\ mostly correct            | Some errors; distract but don\u2019t impede understanding\
\ | Frequent errors; hard to read                    | Excessive errors; unreadable\
\     |\n| **Use of Sources / Citations**                | All sources well-chosen,\
\ cited correctly, integrated smoothly        | Mostly correct citations, generally\
\ well-chosen  | Some citation errors or weak sources                 | Poor use\
\ of sources, many errors                 | No citations or clear plagiarism |\n\
\n### Scoring Sheet Template\n\n| Criterion                  | Score (0\u20134)\
\ | Comment (Required) |\n| -------------------------- | ----------- | ------------------\
\ |\n| Thesis & Purpose           |             |                    |\n| Structure\
\ & Organization   |             |                    |\n| Evidence & Support  \
\       |             |                    |\n| Analysis & Insight         |   \
\          |                    |\n| Clarity & Style            |             |\
\                    |\n| Mechanics                  |             |           \
\         |\n| Use of Sources / Citations |             |                    |\n\
| **Total**                  |             |                    |\n\n### Customization\
\ Options\n\n* **Weighting:** Adjust weights if some criteria are more important\
\ (e.g., double weight for Evidence & Support).\n* **Discipline-Specific Criteria:**\
\ Add elements relevant to your context (e.g., creativity for a narrative, technical\
\ accuracy for a science report).\n* **Holistic Grading:** Optionally provide an\
\ overall holistic score for special assignments.\n\n<Example>\n\n| Criterion  \
\              | Score | Comment                                              |\n\
| ------------------------ | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------\
\ |\n| Thesis & Purpose         | 4     | Clear, original thesis; maintains focus\
\ throughout   |\n| Structure & Organization | 3     | Mostly logical flow, minor\
\ issues in transitions     |\n| Evidence & Support       | 2     | Some evidence\
\ not directly linked to thesis          |\n| Analysis & Insight       | 3     |\
\ Good analysis; could be deeper in final section      |\n| Clarity & Style    \
\      | 4     | Engaging, academic style, very readable              |\n| Mechanics\
\                | 4     | Nearly error-free                                   \
\ |\n| Use of Sources/Citations | 3     | Minor citation errors, otherwise well-chosen\
\ sources |\n| **Total**                | 23    |                              \
\                        |

<Standards>

* **AAC\&U VALUE Rubrics** (American Association of Colleges & Universities)
* **APA / MLA / Chicago Style Guidelines**
* **Bloom's Taxonomy for Critical Thinking**

Prompts in this Series

Step 1: Content Generation

Create initial blog post content based on your topic and audience

Step 1

Step 2: Content Critique (File not found: 2025-08-01-Critique-Content.md)

Analyze and improve the generated content for quality and effectiveness

Current

Related Prompts

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template 3

Professional architecture product requirements document (prd) template 2 prompt designed for high-quality content gen...

Product Management Requirements Engineering Documentation

Executive Keynote Generator

Professional prompt for executive keynote speeches designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Content Creation Communications Planning

Architecture ABB SBB UBB Builder

Professional architecture abb sbb ubb builder prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured anal...

Architecture Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture AI Document Generator

Professional architecture ai document generator prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured an...

Artificial Intelligence Documentation Architecture

Architecture Application Architecture as Markdown

Professional architecture application architecture as markdown prompt designed for high-quality content generation an...

Architecture Requirements Engineering Documentation

Automation Architecture Designer

Professional automation architecture designer prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured anal...

Architecture Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture AVD as Markdown

Professional architecture avd as markdown prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Architecture Requirements Engineering Documentation

Communications Be an Expert and Give Advice

Professional communications be an expert and give advice prompt designed for high-quality content generation and stru...

Communications Content Creation Planning

Architecture Building Block

Professional architecture building block prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Requirements Engineering Architecture Documentation

Architecture Business Architecture as Markdown

Professional architecture business architecture as markdown prompt designed for high-quality content generation and s...

Architecture Business Strategy Documentation Planning

Architecture Data Architecture as Markdown

Professional architecture data architecture as markdown prompt designed for high-quality content generation and struc...

Architecture Requirements Engineering Documentation

Communications expert novelist

Professional communications expert novelist prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Writing Content Creation Communications

Architecture Microsoft Power Automate Systems Architect

Professional architecture microsoft power automate systems architect prompt designed for high-quality content generat...

Architecture Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture PRD Agent

Professional architecture prd agent prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Product Management Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture PRD Generator

Professional architecture prd generator prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Product Management Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) for Power Platform

Professional architecture product requirements document (prd) for power platform prompt designed for high-quality con...

Product Management Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template 2

Professional architecture product requirements document (prd) template 2 prompt designed for high-quality content gen...

Product Management Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template 4

Professional architecture product requirements document (prd) template 4 prompt designed for high-quality content gen...

Product Management Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template

Professional architecture product requirements document (prd) template prompt designed for high-quality content gener...

Product Management Requirements Engineering Documentation

Architecture Requirements Analyst Quality Review

Professional architecture requirements analyst quality review prompt designed for high-quality content generation and...

Requirements Engineering Architecture Documentation

Architecture Requirements Analyst - ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 SRS Generator

A specialized prompt for converting meeting transcripts into structured ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 System Requirements S...

Requirements Engineering Systems Analysis ISO Standards Documentation Meeting Analysis SRS Generation

Risk Assessment clean up

Professional risk assessment clean up prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Risk Management Documentation Business Strategy

Role and Objective

Professional role and objective prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Planning Documentation Business Strategy

Communications Script a Podcast

Professional communications script a podcast prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analy...

Content Creation Communications Writing

Work In Progress: Technology Architecture Generator

Professional technology architecture as markdown prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured a...

Architecture Requirements Engineering Documentation

Communications [Ted's Writing Style]

Professional communications [ted's writing style] prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured ...

Writing Content Creation Communications

Requirements / Test Analyst Prompt

Professional test analyst prompt designed for high-quality content generation and structured analysis.

Requirements Engineering Architecture Documentation

Communications Tiered Messaging Framework

Professional communications tiered messaging framework prompt designed for high-quality content generation and struct...

Communications Content Creation Business Strategy

Artistic Analysis Prompt – Deep Analysis of Artistic Works

A layered, multidimensional prompt for AI to generate scholarly, symbolically-rich, and culturally contextual analyse...

Writing Content Creation Documentation

Cross-Platform Social Media Repurposing Template

A structured, platform-aware markdown framework to repurpose blog content for LinkedIn, Instagram, Threads, Mastodon,...

Content Creation Communications Writing Business Strategy

Marketing Copy Evaluation & Rewrite Template

A prompt for critically evaluating and rewriting web marketing copy using 15 weighted copywriting criteria based on c...

Content Creation Communications Business Strategy

Simple Blog Post Generator

A straightforward blog post generator demonstrating basic variable functionality.

Content Creation Writing Communications

Universal Content Creator - Variable Types Demo

This prompt demonstrates all supported variable types including text, textarea, number, select, radio, and checkbox i...

Content Creation Artificial Intelligence Writing

Comments

With an account on the Fediverse or Mastodon, you can respond to this post. Since Mastodon is decentralized, you can use your existing account hosted by another Mastodon server or compatible platform if you don't have an account on this one. Known non-private replies are displayed below.

Academic Content Critique Template

Prompts in this Series

Related Prompts

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template 3

Executive Keynote Generator

Architecture ABB SBB UBB Builder

Architecture AI Document Generator

Architecture Application Architecture as Markdown

Automation Architecture Designer

Architecture AVD as Markdown

Communications Be an Expert and Give Advice

Architecture Building Block

Architecture Business Architecture as Markdown

Architecture Data Architecture as Markdown

Communications expert novelist

Architecture Microsoft Power Automate Systems Architect

Architecture PRD Agent

Architecture PRD Generator

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) for Power Platform

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template 2

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template 4

Architecture Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template

Architecture Requirements Analyst Quality Review

Architecture Requirements Analyst - ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2018 SRS Generator

Risk Assessment clean up

Role and Objective

Communications Script a Podcast

Work In Progress: Technology Architecture Generator

Communications [Ted's Writing Style]

Requirements / Test Analyst Prompt

Communications Tiered Messaging Framework

Artistic Analysis Prompt – Deep Analysis of Artistic Works

Cross-Platform Social Media Repurposing Template

Marketing Copy Evaluation & Rewrite Template

Simple Blog Post Generator

Universal Content Creator - Variable Types Demo

Comments

Webmentions