Did they sufficiently discuss all aspects of error? Do they critique themselves? If so, you can say this is a good pap

Write a quick summary of the paper. Then write a critique with the following questions in mind:

1. Who funded the study? Is there a conflict of interests?

2. What was the goal and what was actually done in the study?

3. Did they summarize effectively in the introduction?

4. What methods did they use? Did they sample enough data?

5. What could they have done differently?

6. Does the plot box show a significant difference? Did they use appropriate statistic inference?

7. Why did they use such a small number of references?

8. Did they sufficiently discuss all aspects of error? Do they critique themselves? If so, you can say this is a good pap