THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS OF THE TWO ARTICLES IN PRESENTING

A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.

Analysis by: Redentor D. Seguenza

Both of these articles were not only instructive but also included some material that was
rather recent. In addition, there is a sufficient amount of citation that provides an idea of earlier
works. It incorporates the most important landmark or classic studies connected to the questions
that guided this investigation. Both the author's prejudices and the limits of the review process
are acknowledged in both of these statements. The two publications each provide a critical
analysis that is based on distinct criteria and evaluates the quality of the research.
Both of these articles reference previous research that has now become obsolete or other
literature that may no longer be relevant to the topic at hand. In the first article, there was no
application of relevant material in any other part of the article, making it impossible to determine
whether or not the interpretation connected to the prior study and whether or not the gap in the
study was filled. The second article lacks coherence in its citation of the names of the researchers
who conducted the research, and it appears to be overstuffed with names. Another flaw in the
presentation of the linked research in both articles is that it merely provides a list of the studies,
rather than offering any critical evidence in the form of quotations, illustrations, graphs, or
tables. This is a weakness that affects both articles. A poor literature review will combine studies
from multiple decades without providing context, and the two papers here will provide context
for material from multiple decades.