The concept of a critical review is that you are evaluating an argument in a scholarly article. You identify the research question, the thesis, and the main arguments that the scholar uses to support their thesis. Remember to use terms such as 'argues' or 'explains' rather than 'believes'. You are summarizing main arguments, not strictly quoting them, although quotes are allowed. You then want to critically evaluate how they proved their point. For example: do you see any holes in their logic? You might include a critique of an argument in the same paragraph that you summarize it if you feel like it is an inherently flawed one. Do you disagree with their conclusion on the grounds of competing evidence that you've found? This would go at the end of the article summary and before any opinions. Remember that these short assignments are in place of a research paper, therefore your research contributions in the course belong in this writing.
The final and shortest section includes opinions. Did they prove their point and in doing so change the way you think about it? If so, how did they do that? Was their logic inherently flawed throughout or otherwise countered by you throughout, in which case you can summarize your points against the argument in this section. It also may be something like: did you already agree with the conclusion of the argument before the article, if so did they prove their point in a similar fashion to how you would have argued it? Would your argument be based on different, more compelling evidence?