**Sample** 1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
All the basic sections were adequate and organize very well and so the references.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
The writer use subheadings very well and in a good manner.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? Explain.
Absolutely true, the material in a logical, clear and easy to follow.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I rate the paper as strong for its clarity.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The credibility of the paper is strong, because it is very organized and informative.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The paper topics were arranged in systematic manner. More figures will guide and help the reader for better understanding. Paper strong
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
No spelling or grammar errors were found. Strong paper.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
The overall effectiveness of the paper is strong. The writer covers all the topics regarding the chapter and presents all the points in a clear and organized fashion. Harold good job and I wish you more success.
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
The required sections of the paper were complete and adequate. Excellent formatting.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
Subheadings were used adequately. Each protion of the writing was very detailed and organized.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
The materials in this wriitng were very logical and easy to read. Each section was explained fully and was reader friendly. The diagrams were also a great asset.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The assertion of the paper was strong.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The evidence in this paper was strong.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The organization of this paper was strong.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
The mechanics of this paper was strong. Excellent writing skills.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
The overall effectiveness of this paper was very strong. This particular piece of writing was very informative and displayed great writing expertise. Great Job!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete**Sample**
ReplyDelete1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
All the basic sections were adequate and organize very well and so the references.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
The writer use subheadings very well and in a good manner.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? Explain.
Absolutely true, the material in a logical, clear and easy to follow.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I rate the paper as strong for its clarity.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The credibility of the paper is strong, because it is very organized and informative.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The paper topics were arranged in systematic manner. More figures will guide and help the reader for better understanding. Paper strong
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
No spelling or grammar errors were found. Strong paper.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
The overall effectiveness of the paper is strong. The writer covers all the topics regarding the chapter and presents all the points in a clear and organized fashion. Harold good job and I wish you more success.
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
ReplyDeleteThe required sections of the paper were complete and adequate. Excellent formatting.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
Subheadings were used adequately. Each protion of the writing was very detailed and organized.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
The materials in this wriitng were very logical and easy to read. Each section was explained fully and was reader friendly. The diagrams were also a great asset.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The assertion of the paper was strong.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The evidence in this paper was strong.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The organization of this paper was strong.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
The mechanics of this paper was strong. Excellent writing skills.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
The overall effectiveness of this paper was very strong. This particular piece of writing was very informative and displayed great writing expertise. Great Job!!!