# Article Writing

> Structure and style guidance for law review articles

- Skill: `diegosouzapw/article-writing` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add diegosouzapw/article-writing`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/diegosouzapw/article-writing/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: diegosouzapw (https://skillmd.com/u/diegosouzapw)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/diegosouzapw/article-writing

---


# Law Review Article Writing Skill

**Domain:** Legal academic article structure and style
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Last Updated:** 2025-12-15

## Overview

This skill provides guidance for structuring and writing law review articles, including traditional doctrinal pieces, empirical studies, and interdisciplinary scholarship.

## Standard Article Structure

### I. Introduction (5-10% of article)

**Purpose:** Hook the reader, state the thesis, roadmap the article.

**Elements:**
1. **Opening hook** - Compelling case, statistic, or puzzle
2. **Problem statement** - What issue does this article address?
3. **Thesis statement** - What does this article argue?
4. **Contribution claim** - Why does this matter? What's new?
5. **Roadmap** - Brief preview of article structure

**Example opening patterns:**
- Case study opening: "In *Smith v. Jones*, the court faced..."
- Puzzle opening: "Legal scholars have long assumed X, but..."
- Stakes opening: "Every year, thousands of defendants..."
- Counter-intuitive opening: "Conventional wisdom holds that..."

### II. Background/Context (15-20%)

**Purpose:** Give readers necessary context without rehashing basics.

**Elements:**
- Legal doctrine overview (only what's needed)
- Historical development (if relevant)
- Current state of scholarship
- Gap identification (what's missing?)

**Calibration:** Assume reader is smart lawyer unfamiliar with this specific area.

### III. Core Argument (40-50%)

**Purpose:** Develop and support the thesis.

**Structure options:**

**Linear argument:**
```
A. First supporting claim
   1. Evidence/authority
   2. Analysis
B. Second supporting claim
   1. Evidence/authority
   2. Analysis
C. Third supporting claim
   ...
```

**Problem-solution:**
```
A. Problem detailed
B. Existing solutions critiqued
C. Proposed solution
D. Solution defended
```

**Case study driven:**
```
A. Case 1 analysis
B. Case 2 analysis
C. Pattern identification
D. Theoretical implications
```

### IV. Counterarguments (10-15%)

**Purpose:** Acknowledge and respond to objections.

**Best practices:**
- State opposing view fairly and strongly
- Distinguish weak vs. strong objections
- Provide substantive responses
- Concede points where appropriate

### V. Implications/Applications (10-15%)

**Purpose:** Show what follows from your argument.

**Elements:**
- Doctrinal implications
- Policy recommendations
- Future research directions
- Limitations acknowledgment

### VI. Conclusion (5%)

**Purpose:** Synthesize and close.

**Elements:**
- Restate thesis (fresh language)
- Summarize key contributions
- End with broader significance or call to action

## Writing Style Guidelines

### Voice and Tone

- **Authoritative but not arrogant** - State claims confidently, acknowledge limitations
- **Precise** - Legal writing demands exactness
- **Accessible** - Avoid unnecessary jargon
- **Engaging** - Vary sentence structure, use active voice

### Common Style Rules

1. **Prefer active voice**
   - Weak: "The statute was interpreted by the court..."
   - Strong: "The court interpreted the statute..."

2. **Avoid nominalizations**
   - Weak: "The implementation of the policy..."
   - Strong: "Implementing the policy..."

3. **Be specific**
   - Weak: "Courts have generally held..."
   - Strong: "The Second Circuit has consistently held..."

4. **Use strong verbs**
   - Weak: "The defendant made an argument that..."
   - Strong: "The defendant argued that..."

5. **Eliminate throat-clearing**
   - Cut: "It is important to note that..."
   - Cut: "It should be emphasized that..."
   - Cut: "It goes without saying that..."

### Paragraph Structure

**IRAC for analytical paragraphs:**
- **I**ssue - What question does this paragraph address?
- **R**ule - What legal principle applies?
- **A**nalysis - How does the rule apply to facts?
- **C**onclusion - What follows?

**Topic sentences:**
- Every paragraph needs a clear topic sentence
- Topic sentence should advance the argument
- Reader should understand paragraph's point from first sentence

### Transition Strategies

**Between sections:**
- End section with forward reference
- Begin section with backward reference
- Use explicit transition sentences

**Between paragraphs:**
- Logical connectors (however, moreover, therefore)
- Reference to previous paragraph's conclusion
- Parallel structure

## Footnote Density

**Academic standard:** Approximately 1 footnote per 2-3 sentences of text.

**When to footnote:**
- Direct quotations (always)
- Specific claims of fact
- Legal rules and holdings
- Others' arguments you're engaging
- Supporting examples

**When NOT to footnote:**
- Your own original analysis
- General knowledge
- Logical deductions from cited premises

## Length Calibration

| Article Type | Word Count | Footnotes |
|--------------|------------|-----------|
| Student Note | 15,000-25,000 | 150-300 |
| Standard Article | 20,000-35,000 | 200-400 |
| Major Piece | 30,000-50,000 | 300-500 |
| Essay/Commentary | 5,000-10,000 | 50-100 |

## Available Workflows

- `workflows/structure-argument.md` - Develop article outline
- `workflows/integrate-sources.md` - Weave sources into argument
- `workflows/peer-review-prep.md` - Prepare for submission

## Quality Checklist

Before completion, verify:

- [ ] Thesis clearly stated in introduction
- [ ] Each section advances the central argument
- [ ] Counterarguments addressed fairly
- [ ] Citations support claims made
- [ ] Transitions smooth between sections
- [ ] Conclusion synthesizes without mere repetition
- [ ] No unsupported assertions
- [ ] Voice consistent throughout

---

*Legal scholarship persuades through rigorous argument and careful evidence.*