The document provides an annotated example of an article review. The review summarizes and evaluates an article about changes to pronunciation patterns in Received Pronunciation (RP). The review provides a citation, overview of the article's purpose and methods, summary and evaluation of the findings, and an overall assessment. While thorough, the review notes the article could have been more accessible to non-specialist audiences by simplifying technical details and using real-world examples.

1. Page 1 of 1
Article Review
The purpose of an article review is to provide a summary and evaluation of a piece of
writing. When a lecturer reads an article review written by a student, they want to see
evidence that the student has not only understood the topic of the article, but is able to
evaluate the article in relation to their own knowledge of the topic and other relevant
knowledge in the field. The annotated example below provides useful guidance on how to
organise information within your article review and how to select and use language
strategies which help make your writing more evaluative.
Annotated Example of an Article Review
This is an authentic example of student writing. Therefore you should not view this as a
model – while it contains many attributes of a successful article review, it is not a perfect
piece of writing. The comments on the right hand‐side draw your attention to both
strengths and weaknesses in the review, but are not comprehensive and as such you
should not assume that sections of the article review which do not have comments are
without problems. Please not that the language in this article review is not without
grammatical errors.
Functional elements
Article Review: Introduction Language
resources
Citation: tells the
reader which article you
are reviewing and
provides referencing
details
Overview: summarises
for the reader the main
points and goals of the
article (this is important
– your marker wants to
see that you are able to
identify these things)
Overview of critical
assessment: tells the
reader about your
overall assessment of
Fabricius (2002), in her article
‘Ongoing change in Modern
RP: Evidence for the
disappearing stigma of t‐
glottalling’, focuses on the
replacement of the /t/ at the
end of words/syllables with
the glottal stop / / in
‘Received Pronunciation’ (RP),
a prestigious sociolect in
Britain typically ascribed to
the royal family and the BBC.
This feature is traditionally
associated with more localised
varieties of British English
(e.g. Scots, Cockney). The
author aims to highlight the
changing nature of both RP
itself and also attitudes
towards whether the inclusion
of phonetic variations such as
t‐glottalling can still entail
‘acceptable’ RP.
This article is significant
given that studies of sociolects
Reporting verb
carefully selected
to add more
specific meaning
(compare ‘focuses
on’ with
‘discusses’ in this
sentence)
Verb group
carefully selected
to signpost the
student’s
identification of
the goals of the
article
Semi­technical
terminology
shows
familiarity with

2. Page 2 of 2
Functional elements Article Review: Body Language
resources
Summary of an aspect:
summarises for the
reader an aspect of the
article (the
methodological
approach)
Evaluation of this
aspect:
evaluates this aspect of
the article (here the
student evaluates the
originality, rigour and
credibility of the
methodological
approach)
2 After a detailed background
review of both RP itself and
the numerous studies of it, the
author turns her attention to
the main focus of the study: an
original quantitative analysis
of glottalling in RP. The data is
taken from 24 interviews
conducted amongst university
students, all of whom were
deemed of a similar, ‘higher’
social class, categorised thus
by the application of the
Cambridge Scale to their
parents’ occupations coupled
with their educational
background. As well as social
class, the interviewees’
linguistic profile was
evaluated by professional
Evaluative
vocabulary conveys
the reviewer’s
positive assessment
of the rigour and
originality of the
approach
Implicit positive
evaluation of the
credibility/rigour of
the methodological
approach is conveyed
through mention of
the Cambridge
Scale/professional
phoneticians
the article
(here the student
evaluates the article in
terms of ‘significance’
and
‘accessibility’)
deemed to be of a ‘higher’
status than others
(predominantly as a result of
speakers’ higher
socioeconomic profile) are
relativelyrelatively rare. 1 However
as a result of the highly
technical nature of its analysis
and somewhat abstract
implications, the article would
perhapsperhaps only be of
interest to relevant experts
well versed in sociolinguistic
theory and statistical
processes.
important
concepts within
the discipline
Contrastive
conjunction used
to link the
positive and
negative aspects
of the assessment
Modal termModal term
used to reduce
the strength of
the reviewer’s
assessment of
the article
2 Note how the student
has integrated
summary and
evaluation through the
use of (sometimes
implicitly) evaluative
terms and phrases,
such as ‘detailed’ and
‘evaluated by
professional
phoneticians’ to
summarise this aspect
of the article. Good
critical writing often
does this.
1Your marker wants to
see that you can relate
the content of the article
to other knowledge
within the discipline —
in this case the student’s
negative evaluation is
too general to
demonstrate this type of
understanding.

3. Page 3 of 3
Summary of an aspect:
summarises for the
reader an aspect of the
article (the findings of
the study)
Evaluation of this
aspect:
evaluates this aspect of
the article
(here the student
evaluates the validity and
significance of the
findings )
phoneticians who deemed
those included to be RP
speakers.
Using a variety of statistical
methods the author
demonstrates a number of
interesting findings. A
frequency analysis shows
that t‐glottalling occurs more
readily in natural speech than
in formal reading, revealing
an element of style‐shifting in
RP dependent on the situation
perceived by the speaker. A
regional cross‐tabulation
shows how speakers from
London and the South East of
England are more prone to t‐
glottalling, 3 confirming
hypotheses on the diffusion of
this feature from its historical
epicentre (London) made by
University College London
professor of phonetics JC
Wells and cited by the article’s
author. Additionally, an
ANOVA (‘analysis of variance’)
test on participants’ reactions
to two identical bodies of
speech, differing in the level
and varieties of t‐glottalling
contained within each one,
reveals that certain usages of
t‐glottalling are more
acceptably ‘RP’ than others.
4 While these findings are
certainly of interest, the
author’s somewhatsomewhat
overbearing attention to
detail in outlining the minutiae
of her study was exacting
Evaluative
vocabulary conveys
the reviewer’s
positive evaluation of
the
validity/credibility/si
gnificance of the
findings (for example
compare ’shows’ to
‘suggests’ in this
context)
Implicit positive
evaluation of the
validity of the findings
is conveyed by
mention of
similar credible
findings
Contrastive
conjunction used to
link the positive and
negative aspects of
the assessment
Modal termModal term used to
reduce the strength of
3 Note how the student
has related the
findings in the original
article to other
findings in the field.
This allows them to
demonstrate
knowledge of the field
and its concerns and
use this knowledge to
support their
evaluations. The more
evidence you use to
back up your
evaluations the better.
4 When you are
evaluating an aspect of
an article you need to
use terms of
evaluation that are
both specific to the
discipline and its
concerns and
objective. The use of
general and personally
loaded terms such as
‘overbearing attention
to detail’ and ‘point of
distraction’ detracts
from the validity of the
student’s evaluation.

4. Page 4 of 4
almostalmost to the point of
distraction. For instance, the
inclusion of the make and
model number of her
Dictaphone used to record and
transcribe the interviews, an
unnecessary detail
extraneous to the interest of
the reader. While an element of
thoroughness in the review,
methodological considerations
and exposition of results is of
course essential in any research,
and particularly academic
research, it must not go so far as
to distract from the individual
findings and their overall
implications, as was certainly the
case here.
the negative
evaluation
Evaluative
vocabulary conveys
the student’s negative
assessment of the
degree of detail
included in the article

5. Page 5 of 5
Functional elements Article Review: Conclusion Language
resources
Summary of evaluation:
summarises for the
reader the main points
made in the Review stage
in terms of your
evaluation of each aspect
Overall assessment:
tells the reader what
your overall assessment
of the article is (here
positive assessment in
terms of the rigour and
significance and negative
assessment in terms of
accessibility)
In conclusion, Fabricius’ article
provides a comprehensive
review of past research into
RP and presents interesting
findings from the author’s own
thorough study of the
changing nature of RP and
attitudes towards this change
with regards to the
replacement of the /t/ sound
at the ends of words/syllables
with the / / glottal stop.
However, the author’s failure
to explain findings in simple
terms and provide real‐world
examples renders this
research inaccessible to lay
audiences who are
nevertheless stakeholders in
the status of RP (e.g. media
commentators, those in the
dramatic arts).
The relevance of this
otherwise comprehensive
and contemporary study is
therefore 5somewhatsomewhat
compromised by its
relatively restricted
accessibility.
Evaluative
vocabulary conveys
the reviewer’s
positive assessment
of the rigour and
significance of the
study and negative
assessment of the
degree of detail and
lack of focus
Contrastive
conjunction used to
link the positive and
negative aspects of
the assessment
Modal termModal term used to
reduce the strength of
the negative
evaluation
5 The use of modal
terms and tempering
vocabulary is
important as by
reducing the strength
of your claims and
evaluations you leave
less room for your
reader to dispute your
claims and evaluations.