Concurring and Dissenting Reviews of the Chosen Articles

December 1, 2022

Concurring and Dissenting Reviews of the Chosen Articles

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Concurring and Dissenting Reviews of the Chosen Articles

[Order Now]

Article Review Paper

I have attached 2 scholarly journal articles related to my Research Paper topic. Five-page summary of the main points made by the author(s) of each article. You must include an analysis of at least two perspectives/theories with concurring and dissenting reviews of the chosen articles.

The Article Review Paper

Must be four to five double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages)

Must use at least two scholarly sources in addition to the course text.

The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.

Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center

[Order Now]

I have attached 2 scholarly journal articles. Please use in-text citation and check grammar as well please use the text that has been provided.

I have provided three sources. Whenever you are using a quote please indicate which sources you retrieved the information from.

Levy, J. M. (2013).
Contemporary urban planning (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall Press.

Concurring and Dissenting Reviews of the Chosen Articles

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.