Scientific papers are often very challenging, even for senior scientists. Mastering a paper is often a struggle, often frustrating. It isn't necessarily "fun." The fun comes at the end -- but rather call it "satisfaction." And of course our understanding is usually partial. We may return to a paper a decade on and find in it a new depth -- or see weaknesses. There is no "right" reaction to your paper. What is sought is your reaction -- a solid, genuine mind effort on your part.
So firstly, you find a paper that "talks to you" -- whose topic is of some interest, and which you feel is worth a slog. You study it. You try to make sense of it. You try to figure out why it is so highly reputed (you may read others' commentaries on your paper, of course). And in the end, you convey to the reader what you take from the paper. More or less, you will need to provide your synopsis (i.e. summary) of the paper, then provide some contextual information of the sort suggested. Bear in mind, too, that it is in the nature of a "review" to be designed to help others decide whether they want to read a book/an article (or see a film or play).
Assume your reader is an undergraduate student of Meteorology, and choose a suitable level of description. Aim to convey an interesting and coherent (structured) "story". The content of the story is yours to decide. Possibilities are endless, but may cover:
Back to the EAS 372 home page.
Link to Earth & Atmospheric Sciences home page.