Language Development Articles Critique Assignment Paper

I need meticulous criticism for about 30 articles but their pages vary from 6 pages to about 25 pages
the deadline is three days
Please start forwardly without any introduction because I will write it.
I would like you to analyse and criticize each article individually in a table-like to compare them, showing the following:
-a brief explanation of the theory (if there is any based on the article)
-explain briefly the claim
-indicate the research question(s) or hypotheses
-explain any strengths or weaknesses in the methodology (including the participants, the test e.g. non-sense words, if you think that these words are not natural for native speakers and why, any weaknesses in the discussion or the statistics) ..etc.
-indicate the findings and how they support the claim or the hypothesis
-find the gap (if there is any for further research)
- show what is the evidence to support the hypothesis. In other words, does the given experiment provide evidence for the cause of the deficit. It is assumed that there are several causes for the deficit of SLI children, but I want you to focus on three of them: grammar-based, phonology-based or working-memory based.
I will send you the articles and expect you to send them back to me by highlighting any sentences you take your information form in the articles, so that I can recognize it easily.
When you paraphrase or summarize, don't use the same structure or words of the original article, please. Cite any paraphrase or summary by providing a page number, please. Use APA style.
In your writing, use simple English style and words, please. This is for non-native speakers. Thank you.
Please focus on these articles by reading them carefully and analyzing them in detail more than other articles.
Here are the names of the files:
SLI-memory4
SLI-memory5
Working Memory and Specific Language
Marshall - Ebbels - Harris - van der Lely 2002
SLIphonology3
SLI-phonology4
SLI phonology1
SLIphonology2
Joanisse - Seidenberg 2004
SLI-syntax3
syntax 2
SLI morphology
SLI bilingual
Van der Lely - Rosen - McClelland 1998
Kindly find the attached files here.
For the sake of clarity, I will send the instructions again. This is a suggested table but you can extend it. I think this way is helpful for me later when I make a comparison among the articles.
I will enclose the chart in the chat box.
I would like you to analyse and criticize each article individually in a table-like to compare them by showing the following:
-a brief explanation of the theory ( if there is any based on the article)
- identify the claim
- specify the research question(s) or hypotheses
-describe the strengths or weaknesses in the methodology (including the participants, the test e.g. non-sense words, if you think that these words are not natural for native speakers and why, any weaknesses in the discussion or the statistics) ..etc.
-indicate the findings and how they support the claim or the hypothesis. what is the evidence to support the hypothesis. In other words, does the given experiment provide evidence for the cause of the deficit. It is assumed that there are several causes for the deficit of SLI children, but I want you to focus on three of them: grammar, phonology or working memory.
Then, based on the article, summarize the main characteristics of each proposition: grammar, phonology and working-memory
-the gap (if there is any for further research)
I will send you the articles and expect you to send them back to me by highlighting any sentences you take your information form in the articles to support or paraphrase, so that I can recognize the information very fast.
Cite any paraphrase or summary by always providing a page number, please. Use APA style