Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any timeif you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

Critical Review Assignment:

Paper Analysis of Peer Reviewed Research

Assignment Overview

In this assignment, you will write a critical review of the work of two scholars that take different positions on the question of agency and empowerment among Spartan women.

The purpose of this assignment is for students to practice and refine academic writing and critical analysis skills and to engage with peer reviewed research literature. Be sure to follow all instructions very carefully. If you are unsure of any of these, ask your instructor for clarification.

Instructions

1. Read Both of the required sources listed below (note: You must read the full chapter by Ellen Millender and Chapters 2 and 3 of the book by Pomeroy)

2. Write a critical review paper based on these sources. The required word count for the paper is 800 – 1000 words

Sources

Millender, Ellen. 2009. “Athenian Ideology and the Empowered Spartan Woman in Sparta: New Perspectives, ed. Hodkinson, Stephen and Anton Powell, Anton, 355-391. United Kingdom: The Classical Press of Wales.

Pomeroy, Sarah B.. 2002. Spartan Women. New York: Oxford University Press.

Note: Chapters 2 and 3 are the required reading from Spartan Women for this assignment

Sources can be accessed on the Course D2L under My Tools >> Reading List (Leganto) 1.3

Paper Elements:

Your paper should include all of the following components:

1. Summary of Each Author’s Argument:

• Clearly identify each author’s main thesis or position

• Summarize the key arguments and types of evidence each author uses to support their claims

2. Comparison of the Authors’ Arguments

• Identify key points of agreement and/or disagreement between the two authors• Compare how each author defines and approaches the concepts of agency or empowerment

• Consider differences in evidence, methodology, emphasis, or interpretation

3. Critical Assessment:

• Evaluate the strengths of each author’s work (e.g., use of evidence, clarity of argument, engagement with sources)

• Identify any weaknesses or limitations (e.g., gaps in evidence, assumptions, overgeneralizations)

• Consider how convincingly each authors’ interpretation of evidence supports their conclusions

4. Your Position on the Topic:

• Explain which author you find more convincing, or whether your view falls somewhere between the two

• Justify your position with reference to the arguments and evidence presented in the readings Citation and Formatting Guidelines

• You are required to use Chicago author–date style for all in-text citations

• No reference list is required, unless you include sources other than the 2 required sources provided in this document.

• Citations and block quotations do not count toward the required word total

• Use double spacing, 12-point font, and standard margins

Submission Instructions

• Submit your paper to the associated Drop Box on D2l by 11:59 pm on the deadline listed on the course outline.

• Upload your work as a PDF or MS Word document.

• Include a title page that includes: Your full name, UCID #, and paper word count.

Academic Integrity

This assignment must represent your own work and thinking. You may discuss the readings with classmates, but your written submission must be original and properly cited. Any use of ideas, wording,or interpretations from the readings must be acknowledged through citation. The use of AI is strictly prohibited for this assignment. You may consult Writing Support at UCalgary’s Student Success centre on this assignment. Assessment Criteria and Grading Rubric

Rubric:

Assessment will be made on the following criteria:

Structure and Organization (15%)

• Essay is well organized, with a clear introduction that outlines the debate and a conclusion that synthesizes findings and position.

• Each paragraph has a clear purpose and begins with a topic sentence that signals its contribution to the overall argument.

• Paragraphs are logically ordered, and transitions clearly guide the reader through summaries, comparisons, and analysis.

• The structure supports comparison and critical evaluation rather than presenting the readings as isolated summaries.

Style (Spelling, Punctuation, Language, Grammar) (15%)

• Writing is clear, formal, and appropriate for an academic history paper.

• Sentences are complete and varied in structure; terminology is used accurately.

• Spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors are minimal and do not distract the reader.

• Tone is objective and analytical rather than conversational or informal.

Argumentation (Coverage and Knowledge) (40%)

• The paper accurately and clearly presents the key features of each scholar’s argument, including thesis, supporting claims, and evidence.

• Explanations are self-contained and do not assume prior familiarity with the readings.

• The paper explicitly compares and contrasts the authors’ positions, highlighting points of agreement, disagreement, and divergence in interpretation.

• Analysis demonstrates critical thinking, including awareness of complexity, nuance, and scholarly debate.

Use of Source Material (20%)

• Claims and evaluations are supported with appropriate references to the assigned readings.

• The paper shows clear interaction with the source material through paraphrase, synthesis, and selective quotation.

• It is always clear when the student is summarizing an author’s ideas versus advancing their own interpretation or evaluation.

• Sources are used to support analysis rather than replace it.

Citation (10%)

• All in-text citations and the reference list follow Chicago author–date style consistently and accurately.

• Paraphrases, summaries, and quotations are properly cited.

• Citation practices demonstrate academic integrity and transparency in the use of sources.

Performance-Level Assessment Chart

The chart below illustrates how performance at different levels typically appears across the assessment criteria. It is intended to clarify expectations and promote transparent, consistent grading.

Criterion	Outstanding	Strong	Developing	Limited
Structure and Organization	Paper is exceptionally well structured. Paragraphs are purposeful and focused with clear topic sentences. Transitions create a smooth, logical progression throughout.	Overall organization is clear and effective. Most paragraphs are focused and well ordered, with minor issues in flow or emphasis.	Organization is uneven. Some paragraphs lack clear focus or logical sequencing; transitions are limited or mechanical.	Paper lacks clear structure. Ideas appear disorganized; paragraphs are unfocused or missing; reader struggles to follow the argument.
Style and Clarity of Writing	Writing is polished, precise, and consistently academic. Sentences are clear and varied; errors are rare and insignificant.	Writing is clear and appropriate for academic work. Minor errors are present but do not impede comprehension.	Writing is understandable but uneven. Recurrent grammatical or stylistic issues occasionally interfere with clarity.	Writing is unclear or informal. Frequent errors significantly hinder understanding.
Argumentation and Understanding of Scholarship	Demonstrates excellent understanding of both authors’ arguments. Analysis is nuanced, comparative, and critically engaged; complexities and implications are clearly articulated.	Demonstrates solid understanding of the authors’ positions. Comparison and analysis are present but may lack depth or nuance.	Demonstrates basic understanding of the arguments, but discussion is largely descriptive or only implicitly comparative.	Demonstrates limited or inaccurate understanding of the readings; little meaningful comparison or analysis.
Use of Source Material	Sources are integrated skillfully to support analysis. Clear distinction between authors’ ideas and the student’s own arguments; evidence is used analytically rather than illustratively.	Sources are used effectively to support claims. Distinction between summary and analysis is generally clear.	Sources are used inconsistently. Evidence may be under-explained, over-quoted, or insufficiently connected to claims.	Sources are poorly used or largely absent; quotations replace analysis; reader cannot distinguish sources from student ideas.
Citation Practices	Chicago author–date style is used correctly and consistently throughout; all borrowed ideas are clearly and accurately cited.	Citation style is mostly correct, with minor formatting or consistency errors.	Citation practices are inconsistent or incomplete; some errors or omissions are evident.	Citations are missing, incorrect, or do not follow Chicago author–date style.