# data[].attributes.body
Fairly narrow: the topic in itself is narrow, as they establish their parameters and variables that they will specifically look at. However, they fail to establish where they will be conducting their research, which could be an argument towards a broader topic of inquiry. (They do, however, state their "location" in the methods section.)

# data[].attributes.body
The topic of inquiry is in between for this paper because there isn't really a specific group of people it is looking at. The statement itself is a little broad, but the overall topic is pretty narrow since its focused specifically on academic performance of those people based on their birth order.

# data[].attributes.body
It does have multiple perspectives. There is the perspective regarding siblings, regarding parents, and regarding stress. These are all marked by subheadings. This person also uses scholarly sources that are connected to the topic. As for addressing a gap, they claim that they plan to fill that gap that is that there is not much research on high schoolers, and then specifically on the birth order of them as well as how that impacted their academics.

# data[].attributes.body
This person included multiple perspectives throughout the Intro/Lit Review including: family/parents, siblings, and stress. They also referred to scholarly sources that connected to their topic. The gap of this research focuses on high school students.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, this person does describe their method thoroughly. This method is replicable and is aligned to the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
The method is described as a correlational study through a survey, and is clearly stated and aligns to the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
There is a new understanding of the topic mentioned in the conclusion section, and the data is thoroughly explained. There is evidence to back up the conclusion which is the data collected through the survey. The paper does include limitations and future implications.

# data[].attributes.body
The overall paper was well-written with very minimal grammatical errors. Each section had a heading which makes it more organized.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, there is a new and thorough understanding of the topic. There is a lot of evidence to back up the claim. There are also limitations and implications that add to the depth of the thinking behind the research paper.

# data[].attributes.body
The citations are consistent throughout the paper, and it is free from plagiarism.

# data[].attributes.body
This paper was extremely well-written and I could not find any stark grammatical errors. It was very well organized with headings and subheadings.

# data[].attributes.body
Citations are consistent throughout the text, and ideas are attributed. Seems to be free from plagiarism.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, I really likes this paper and thought it was well done. One critique I have is that I wish the graphs were easier to understand. They were confusing, with a lack of clarity, and a lot of information in one graph.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, I think this paper was well-organized, although the only limitation I found was that the number of participants were not evenly distributed among the birth orders. I feel like if it was evenly distributed, the data would be a little more accurate.