How To Critique A Research Paper, Article, Journal (Critical Appraisal)

Summary

In this video, the presenter explains how to effectively critique a research article. The focus is on assessing both the strengths and limitations of a study by analyzing its key elements, such as the title, authorship, peer review status, abstract, methodology, sample size, ethical considerations, results, discussion, and references. The video also emphasizes understanding the difference between critiquing and criticizing a paper. The presenter offers practical guidelines to follow when evaluating research articles and encourages viewers to ask for a live demonstration of the critique process if they need further clarity.

Takeaways

• 😀 Critiquing a research article involves assessing its strengths and limitations to determine its quality and reliability.
• 🔍 The critique process should consider various aspects of the research, including believability (author credentials, peer review, abstract clarity) and robustness (research methodology, results, discussion).
• 👨‍🏫 The author emphasizes the importance of understanding the research problem, literature review, and how they inform the hypothesis and research questions.
• 📊 Methodology critique includes examining the study design, data collection instruments, reliability, validity, and ethical considerations.
• 🔑 The sample selection process should be scrutinized for randomness, representativeness, and the appropriateness of the sample size.
• 🔍 Ethical considerations are crucial in research, including informed consent, confidentiality, and ensuring no harm comes to participants.
• 📈 The results section should provide a clear statistical analysis, with transparency on participant dropouts and reasons.
• 📝 The discussion should link back to the literature review, support or refute the hypothesis, and discuss the significance of the findings.
• 📚 References are critical for academic integrity, and their appropriateness, accuracy, and relevance should be checked.
• 💡 The video offers a comprehensive guide for critiquing research articles, encouraging viewers to apply these principles for thorough analysis.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the video?

The main focus of the video is to teach viewers how to critique a research article by analyzing its various components and determining its strengths and limitations.

Why is critiquing a research article important?

Critiquing a research article is important because it helps to assess the validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the research, which in turn aids in determining whether the article is of high quality and should be used in one's own work.

What are the two elements the presenter groups research articles into for critique?

The presenter groups research articles into two elements for critique: Element A, which focuses on believability and includes the title, authors, peer review, abstract, and writing style; and Element B, which focuses on the robustness of the article and includes details like research problem, methodology, results, and ethics.

What should the title of a research article convey?

The title of a research article should be clear, accurate, and unambiguous, giving a reader a good idea of what the report is about without being too broad or vague.

Why is the author's qualification important when critiquing a research article?

The author's qualification is important because it indicates their expertise and ability to conduct the research on the topic at hand, which can affect the credibility of the research.

What does the presenter mean by 'gold standard' in the context of research?

The 'gold standard' refers to the highest level of quality or the best method used as a benchmark for evaluating the research, ensuring that the methods and results meet the highest standards of the field.

Why is the abstract crucial when critiquing a research article?

The abstract is crucial because it provides a concise overview of the entire paper, including the research problem, methodology, findings, and recommendations, which helps in quickly assessing the relevance and quality of the research.

What should be included in the critique of the methodology section?

The critique of the methodology section should include the study design, the instruments used for data collection, the reliability and validity of these instruments, whether a pilot study was conducted, and whether the researchers were blinded.

Why is ethical consideration important in research?

Ethical consideration is important in research to ensure the protection of participants, maintain their confidentiality, obtain informed consent, and avoid any harm or unethical treatment during the research process.

What role do references play in a research article and why are they important to critique?

References play a crucial role in a research article as they provide the academic foundation and credibility to the work by acknowledging the contributions of previous research. Critiquing references ensures that the article is built on reliable and relevant sources.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Critiquing Research Articles

The speaker begins by reminding viewers of a promise made in a previous video to teach how to critique a research article, which is the focus of today's video. The importance of understanding the strengths and limitations of a research paper is emphasized, as this helps in determining its quality and reliability. The speaker outlines that critiquing involves analyzing various aspects of a research report to assess whether the methods and conclusions are justified. The process is not simply a binary judgment but a nuanced evaluation considering multiple factors.

05:03

🔍 Evaluating Believability: Element A

The speaker introduces 'Element A', which pertains to the believability of a research article. This section includes the title, author qualifications, peer review status, and writing style. The title should be clear, accurate, and unambiguous, providing an immediate understanding of the article's content. Author qualifications are crucial, as they lend credibility to the research. The peer review process is highlighted as a strength, ensuring that the article has been vetted by experts. Lastly, the writing style and structure of the article are examined for clarity and coherence.

10:04

🔬 Delving into the Robustness: Element B

Moving on to 'Element B', the speaker discusses the robustness of a research article, which includes a detailed examination of the research problem, literature review, hypothesis, and research questions. The clarity and relevance of the research problem are essential, and the literature review should be structured and recent, with a mix of primary and empirical research. The hypothesis should reflect the information from the literature review, and the research questions should be clearly stated. This section forms the backbone of the research article, providing depth and substance to the study.

15:07

🧐 Methodological Rigor and Ethical Considerations

The speaker continues by discussing the methodology section, which includes the study design, data collection instruments, and their validity and reliability. It's important to assess whether the study design is appropriate for the research problem and whether the data collection methods are reliable and valid. Additionally, ethical considerations are paramount, including informed consent, confidentiality, and obtaining ethical permissions. The speaker emphasizes that any oversight in ethics can invalidate a research study.

20:07

📊 Analyzing Results and Discussing Findings

In this section, the speaker focuses on the results and discussion parts of the research article. It's crucial to check if the data and statistical analysis are appropriate for the research conducted and if the findings are significant. The discussion should link back to the literature review and hypothesis, assessing whether the results support the hypothesis. The speaker also mentions that the article should include the strengths and limitations of the study and provide recommendations for future research. Proper referencing is also highlighted as a critical aspect of academic integrity.

📝 Conclusion and Call to Action

The speaker concludes by summarizing the key points of critiquing a research article and encourages viewers to apply these guidelines to evaluate research papers effectively. A call to action is made for viewers to request a live critique of a specific research article in the comments section. The speaker also invites viewers to like and subscribe to the channel to support the content and ensure it reaches a wider audience. The video ends with an invitation for feedback and questions, emphasizing the interactive nature of the educational platform.

Keywords

💡Critique

Critique, in the context of the video, refers to the process of systematically evaluating a research article to determine its strengths and limitations. It is not a judgment of the research as being 'good' or 'bad', but rather an analysis that considers various aspects of the research to assess its validity, reliability, and reproducibility. The video emphasizes that critiquing a paper involves looking at multiple steps and aspects of the research process.

💡Research Article

A research article, as discussed in the video, is a scholarly work that presents original research. The video focuses on how to critique such articles, which involves evaluating their methodology, results, and conclusions. The script mentions that critiquing helps in deciding whether the research article is of high quality and if it can be used for further academic purposes.

💡Literature Review

Literature Review is a comprehensive analysis of previous research on a topic. The video script mentions that a literature review is an important part of a research article and should be well-structured and critically analyzed. It serves as a foundation for formulating research questions and hypotheses, and the video suggests that a detailed understanding of how to conduct a literature review is beneficial for critiquing research articles.

💡Validity

Validity in the script refers to the extent to which a research instrument, measure, or method produces results that are accurate or correct. The video emphasizes checking the validity of the instruments used in a study as part of the critique process. An instrument is considered valid if it measures what it is supposed to measure, which is crucial for the credibility of the research findings.

💡Reliability

Reliability pertains to the consistency of a research method or instrument. If a measure is reliable, it will yield similar results when used under the same conditions. The video script includes reliability as a key aspect to consider when critiquing a research article, as it indicates whether the findings can be consistently replicated.

💡Ethics

Ethics in research involves ensuring the rights and welfare of research participants are protected. The video script highlights the importance of ethical considerations in research, such as informed consent, confidentiality, and obtaining ethical permission. These aspects are crucial for the integrity of the research and are part of the critique process to ensure the research was conducted responsibly.

💡Sample Size

Sample Size refers to the number of participants or observations included in a study. The video script mentions that when critiquing a research article, one should check if the sample size is adequate for drawing valid conclusions. An appropriate sample size is necessary to ensure that the study's findings are statistically significant and can be generalized.

💡Methodology

Methodology in a research article describes the procedures, processes, and techniques used to conduct the research. The video script emphasizes the importance of a clear and identifiable study design within the methodology section. It includes the type of study (e.g., experimental, observational), the instruments used for data collection, and the approach to data analysis.

💡Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation or assumption made based on limited evidence, which can be tested through research. The video script explains that the hypothesis should be clearly identified and should reflect the information gathered from the literature review. Critiquing the hypothesis involves checking if it is based on a thorough understanding of existing literature and if it logically leads to the research questions.

💡Peer Review

Peer review is a process where other experts in the same field evaluate the quality of the research and the manuscript. The video script mentions that a paper being peer-reviewed is a strength, as it indicates that other professionals have assessed the research and found it to be of sufficient quality to be published. This process helps maintain high standards in academic publishing.

💡Abstract

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article that presents the key points of the study, including the research problem, methodology, findings, and recommendations. The video script states that the abstract should provide a clear overview of the paper and that it is often the first part readers look at to determine if the full article is worth exploring. A well-written abstract is crucial for the believability of the research article.

Highlights

Introduction to critiquing a research article

Importance of understanding the research process for critique

Defining the strength and limitation of a research paper

Critiquing as a factor-based assessment rather than a binary judgment

The necessity of understanding the research's purpose, method, and expected outcomes

Element A: Believability factors in critiquing (title, authors, peer review, abstract, writing style)

Evaluating the clarity and accuracy of the research title

Assessing the qualifications and relevance of the authors

The significance of peer review in the research credibility

The role of abstract in summarizing the research paper

Element B: Robustness factors in critiquing (research problem, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, ethics, references)

Clarity and identification of the research problem

Structuring and critical analysis within the literature review

Inclusion of primary and empirical research in literature review

Clarity of research objectives, hypothesis, and research questions

Selection and justification of the research sample

Study design identification and its appropriateness for the research

Data collection instruments' reliability and validity

Ethical considerations in research including informed consent and confidentiality

Data analysis methods and their appropriateness for the research

Linking research findings back to the literature review and hypothesis

Discussion of the study's strengths and limitations

Formulating recommendations based on research findings

Importance of proper referencing in academic research

Call to action for viewers to request a live research article critique

Encouragement for viewers to like, subscribe, and engage with the content

Closing remarks and a prompt to spread positivity

Transcripts

i promised you guys in my previous video

that i am going to teach you

how to critique a research article

and that is what we're doing in today's

video so

if that sounds like what you're looking

for then

definitely keep watching

so guys welcome and in today's video

we'll be talking about how to research

oh sorry i said research how to

critique a research article and i

mentioned in my previous video on

how to conduct a literature review that

this would help

tremendously in achieving that purpose

so

if you have not seen the video on how to

conduct a literature review make sure to

check it out it will really help you

because it's a

very detailed video so now let's get

into conducting

uh a critique of a

research article and the main thing i

want you to take

away from this introduction part is that

critiquing a paper

means you want to define the strength

and the limitation of that paper to help

you decide if it's a

very good research article or if it's

not so if they ask you if a

paper or a risk a journal article or

research article is good or not

you can't just it's not a simple yes or

no it involves you

taking into consideration several steps

that were taken

because the research is not just a

one-way step it's several steps put into

place

so you analyze each part of that report

to decide whether what was done was

justified it was

basically you want the strength to be

more than the limitation

that is what i i

i understand by critiquing a paper

so i have mentioned also in my previous

video on critical analysis that

critiquing doesn't necessarily have to

be bad it means you're considering all

the factors that you have in place

so it can be either good it can be bad

and

it might not even be anything at all but

it is worth mentioning

so to critique a paper now you want to

understand what has been

done that's the first thing when you

understand oh this is what this person

did now

compared to the goal standard there's

always a gold standard for

everything so now you

for every every topic if you understand

why you will understand the how which is

the main party how is the main part of

this

presentation and then you understand

what and that is what is expected

which is what would happen how you would

carry it out

what you would see so if you understand

why

you understand how and what and why is

conducting a critique help you assess

that paper

whether it is good or whether you should

use it or you should not use it it helps

you determine its validity its

reliability

is reproducibility so many things helps

you determine

but then the main thing in this video is

how do you even carry out that critique

so is the how part we're going to focus

on

so now let's get to that how part i

don't want to waste

any time or bore you with unnecessary

details

now i have decided that these are the

things you're going to look out for if

you pick out the research paper

there are different sections and this

almost already sections so i i

i grouped it into two elements which is

element a

and element b and the reason why i did

that is

the element a part is the believability

part let me name it as the believability

part which is the part where

excuse me whenever you want to skim

a paper or an article this is the part

you usually just always came to to

determine whether okay it's worth

reading at all so you have to author the

title

peer review abstract and the writing

style

then for the element b you have all the

other details which is the robust part

of the uh

article so therefore we're going to

group it into these two elements and

then i'm going to tell you what to look

out for

under each subtitle that will tell you

uh that will help you

critique that article

so for the element a you have

the title the title of the paper in

question

is it clay is it accurate is it

unambiguous

what do i mean by this when you read the

title can you

guess what the old report is all about

if i read the title that says exercise

as a means of weight loss i already

understand that

in that article all i want to read about

is how exercise

affects weight loss so

is he accurate straight to the point and

then is it on ambiguous is in something

that is achievable not something that is

just so massive that you're like

would they be able to carry that out is

that even possible what you get

so how clear is the title

the announcement to the authors or the

auto auto autos

how qualified are the authors

now what do i mean by being qualified

say for example

you reading an article

or you want check out an article on

cancer

the medical part of it the clinical part

of cancer

and the research was done by somebody

that does

web designing

you get the point you that questions the

old

how how would you expect somebody who

does uh web design

to actually conduct uh

a research on the clinical aspect of

cancer

so you query that like that's the

limitation

is the person learned enough to even uh

carry out such a research now you want

to know if the article has been pair

reviewed

this actually improves is a strength if

it's been pair reviewed then that's

perfect that means

if a learned person as well has also

read it and approved of that literature

almost all journals journals always

positive that they are peer reviewed

when you check

a literature or an article they always

write it to their

peer reviewed which is a it's an added

advantage stating that atlanta person

has also checked it and are saying that

okay the strength of this paper

outweighs the limitation and then the

paper actually qualifies to

be published

now you look at the writing style as

well how was you written

was it structured the grammar that was

used were they correct

so all these things was it coincides not

just uh

merry grounding or parabolating about

the topic was it coincides

all these things are the things that you

look out for

when you're writing now let's look at

the abstract

the abstracts part of the of

an article is what people always read

when they are scheming

to determine whether they will pick that

paper and add it to this whichever they

want to review

or not so it has to give a clear

overview

of what the entire paper is all about so

is the

is the abstract doing that and it does

it's

it shouldn't be too long when i wrote my

masters my abstract was 300 words

so for that thesis i only have 300 words

of abstract

abstract but it had to contain the

necessary details that would give

an overview of what the old thing what

the old article is all about

and this includes the research problem

the sample

the methodology the findings and the

recommendation

to get you have to put all that in your

abstract so that whoever picks up

is able to determine whether that is

something they want to

add to their literature or not but at

least

they get the old point now to the

elements

be part of it which i said is the robust

but that's the part that contains most

of the things that

um the article is all about

so you want to see if the purpose

or the research problem is clear

like was this clearly stated it has to

be clearly stated

and clearly identified so that when you

know the problem like this is the

problem this is what we're researching

about

and then you see oh at the end of it was

the problem

was it like uh

was the problem was it clearly stated

you need to

understand that if the problem was

clearly stated

then the literature review part of it

you also have to check that to see if it

was well structured

to get i have uh a recent video

on how to conduct a literature review if

you're interested it's quite detailed

so you can check it out so this

literature review

is was it well structured and was it

critically analyzed

these are important things like these

are important things that you have to

look out for

and the literatures that were used in

the literature review how recent

were they i am of the school of thought

that

literatures that should be used in

literature reviews should not be more

than

a decade old except in situation where

you want to define a concept and the

original definition

was done a long time ago like 960

something not there about

and that is the only time i think you're

allowed to use though to reference

uh to reference something that old

and then the little still on that

literature review now

these articles that were used whether

mainly primary research

over the empirical what do they mean by

these primaries that are like

who said they are conducted primarily

but empirical are like

systematic reviews secondary research so

i think it's best if you have both

primary

and empirical research in an article

it actually shows the diversibility

or like how diverse uh

what's it called how diverse the sources

are

the diversity helps like it helps to

show that

it's not just a one-sided thing you get

so you have the research problem clearly

written out

so this is the problem you have the

literature review also pointing at that

same problem

and analyzing or using that tutorial to

generate the hypothesis which leads me

to the next point

which is the amg objective the

hypothesis and the research questions

where they clearly identified

what they clearly stated does it reflect

the information from the literature

review because you can't have an

hypothesis the hypothesis is always

based on all the literatures you have

put together because you have identified

the problem

you have put up literatures to back it

up and then you have been able to

generate

an hypothesis from those literatures so

you can see how it follows each other so

you check

was it clearly stated this there is no

way you have a receptor once they told

that

was it was everything that we've

mentioned was it clearly stated was it

clearly explained

if it was that's a strength and if it

wasn't that's a limitation

but i want you to understand that there

is no bad

research you're only assessing when

you're critiquing you're only assessing

the strength and the limitation

of that research you're not saying

whether the research is bad or research

is good you're just saying oh

this research has a lot of strength it

has lots of limitation

tickets so now you also go to the sample

the example now in question is the

population like let's say you're

conducting a research

on uh girls so that means girls

are your sample like the legendary

population

now you can all cone it down to maybe

girls in a particular area

and even in that area you can still

calling down to girls within the age of

this

uh maybe five to ten in a particular

area so that's your target audience five

to ten year old girls

are your target audience now you would

determine

you check that article whether the the

root how they actually choose

the exact sample size they used was the

was their probability or not

your lessons of this is if there was

probability then that shows that

the possibility of bias is limited but

if there was no probability

then there's a possibility of bias do

dig it

so all these things are what you would

include if the

if probability was done then that means

that's a strength

and if there was no probability that's a

limitation

and the sample size that was used was

the adequate

so there is a way to calculate sample

size you can kind of calculate

whether the sample size they used in

that literature is sufficient enough to

even

draw a conclusion and then the inclusion

and exclusion criteria

for that sample size like okay these are

people that can be included these are

the people that are coming

based on certain criteria it should be

included in that article so you

have to check it out to see whether

those were included

if they were included then that is a

strength for that

particular article and then that leads

me to

methodology methodology is the study

design

clearly identified that's one thing you

want to

determine is the study design clearly

identified study design can be

indifferent from it is the study

experiment is it

quasi-experimentalization

retrospective prospective cross-section

as in there are several

so which one was it and the overall

essence of knowing it

is to say okay if it was cross-sectional

cross-sectional

you can state the advantages and the

disadvantages as well

but you're not saying whether it is bad

or it is good

although most people believe that the

ghost standard is randomized

through trials but that doesn't mean

that randomized control trials apply

for all research it might not be the

best for some forms of research you get

but then you still have to state what

type of

study design was used

and then when the study design was used

what instrument was used to gather

data so how was the data gathered

by instruments now they don't it doesn't

have to be

a physical instrument it could be a

software it could be

something was used to gather data and

that is what you call whatever is used

together data is what you call an

instrument

and now this instrument in question that

was used was this dated day

how reliable or how valid

this instrument is and then you can

determine that based on several things

okay

what does validity mean let's start from

there validity means that

the instrument is able to measure what

it is

made to measure say for example a

weighing scale is used to

measure weight so that means

it is a valid instrument for measuring a

weighing scale is a valid instrument

for measuring weight you don't expect a

weighing scale

to measure waist circumference ticket

now what does reliability mean

it means that when you conduct a

research

or a measurement another researcher can

come all circumstances being equal

another researcher can come and

do the same measurement and get the same

result

with all circumstances being equal all

circumstances and arrangements then you

could you understand

so now this instrument you want to check

whether

um this instrument has been calibrated

meaning anybody that uses it will get

the same result

that is what you want to achieve

and there was a pilot study done to

check

to steal to check the instrument and to

assess how

how accurate the data that you're

recording

is do you understand

so you want to state all this whether it

was done or whether i wasn't done

or whether um what's it called now

with uh you know from another thing is

those that are carrying out the the

researchers

that are recording the results were they

blinded

what blinding means in this case is that

are they aware whether or an individual

belongs to the

research group or belongs to the control

group

you get if there's blinding the damage

possibility of bias is

reduced but there's no blinding then

that means there is a possibility of

buyers

so those are the things you will include

in your critique

so now that takes me to ethics the

ethical part of

a research is actually very very

important

all research can be cancelled if the

ethics is is

wrong like where the participants fully

inform was they informed

consent and then where they promised

confidentiality was it guaranteed

everything they say is in confidential

every you can't put their name you can't

put their details it's not possible

so was it confidential you have to state

all that the weather

or that was written in the article and

then

before even conducting the research was

ethical permission

granted from the from the appropriate

body

there are several bodies that grant

ethical permission

in different countries or in different

states so

was the appropriate permission was it

sought

was it given and then were the

participants protected from harm

what this means is that you're not

allowed to administer

any form of treatment or any form of

research on an individual

you know it's going to cost them um you

can't give a drug that you know it's

going to kill a person

in a research it is on as a table it is

not

ethical so all these have to be checked

out in the research like was it was that

written

did they detail it and not that if you

check out the particular risk

a particular aspect of a recent and you

can't find the details you're looking

for

including your critique that you checked

out this aspect and you can't find the

necessary details

which should have been it is also part

of the critic

the next you have the result results as

a result

the results or the findings now for this

part

because i'm actually basing this on a

quantitative kind of critic

so what type of data and statistical

statistical analysis was done

was did they use the right one there are

several so which one is appropriate for

the particular research that

was for the pa that particular set that

was carried out

was it the appropriate one

and then the sample size that was used

they need to give a detail

if anyone left the research it needs to

be stated and the reason for leaving

needs to be stated is to everything is

broken up the number of male the number

of female

the number of people that started the

number of buddha dropped out

reasons for dropping out all this has to

be included

in that article so you have to state

whether they are

included and that would be uh a plus

on the side of the wrist on the article

if

all this way uh were put in the article

which means it's quite detailed and

extensive

which is a good one and then the

significance

of findings was is stated like

everything that was said the

significance of it what was it was it

was

it written was the significance of the

was the code of the data and statistical

analysis

that was done and then that would

influence the discussion

so now for the discussion were you able

to link it back

to the literature review because

from the literature review we

propose the hypothesis so for the

discussion part you want to state

whether the hypothesis is actually

supported

ticket or not

so that that part can only be linked

back to the literature review and then

when you

check the discussion was this done if

yes you state it in your critic and if

no also stated

you created the strength and the

limitation of the study also has to be

included

in the in the article and then that will

help your critique

was the strength and limitation of where

the strengths and limitations

discussed and where recommendations meet

recommendations in this case could be

the um

the researcher or the article could

could show that okay this area this

particular area

needs to be researched more or there's a

need for

further investigation of a particular

those are recommendations that can be

made

or even a recommendation for a different

topic entirely

can be proposed so where all these

included

in the research that would show that

the research is extensive and detailed

to understand

and then lastly the references

references are extremely

important i can't over emphasize that

like

you can write your work and no

reference you will and because i have

stated before that

academic writing involves you resting on

the shoulders of giants that have gone

beyond before you

so you need to respect those giants and

put their names there because

it's no you didn't formulate everything

so you need to put their names there so

that

you can give credits to whom creditors

do you and then

everything can be traced so where the

reference is whether the appropriate

type because a different it was it

harvard referencing

was he mla which one was it was it

chicago which one

so was it done appropriately was he uh

numbered or was he in alphabetical order

which is also important

and with the idea the right one very

well dated

all that should be checked for

references and if you can do all

this if you want to critique a paper and

you

follow this guideline i promise you

that's going to be a distinction

so one thing i want to do is this

because this video is already about

right now is about 23 minutes plus which

is quite long

and i don't want to bore you out if you

want me to give you an example to

pull out a research article and then

critique it

you need to leave that in the comment

section telling me that you want me to

critique

just pick a research article from maybe

google scholar

and then i critique it or take it

together openly and then you can

understand further what i'm talking

about

but if you follow this guideline you

rest assured that you're covered

okay so let me know in the comment

section and i hope so far you have liked

and subscribed

to my channel if you haven't please do

so i would really appreciate it

and it would also help for other people

been to benefit it will help other

people benefit from this video because

youtube will be able to show this video

to them

if you like or subscribe to the channel

it tells youtube that

this is a very good and detailed content

okay guys so thank you for staying with

me this far

if you have any problem or if you have

any query or question or if you think i

have succeeded in confusing you more

just let me know in the comment section

and i will clarify it

alright guys so till i see you in my

next video guys

make sure you put a smile on somebody's

face

[Music]

bye