1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
These sections appear to be adequate.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
Yes, however, I believe the section titled Data Storage types could have been better written if subheadings and separation was used. That section was quite confusing while trying to read.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
The material was ordered in a logical way, however, the paper was hard to follow due #2 above.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I believe it was satisfactory. The information given was of great importance, however wasn't written in a clear manner.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I believe the relevance, strength, and credibility of this paper was strong.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The arrangement of idea's was done well, and guiding the reader was pretty good, but not great. There seemed to be a lot of repetition in the paper which caused loss of guidance.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
Spelling was satisfactory. There were a few words that were improperly used, such as personnel for personal, forth and or instead of for, hosed instead of housed, combing instead of combining. Punctuation was very weak. Throughout the document, there was a complete lack of proper comma usage, causing a lot of confusion while trying to read.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
I believe the overall effectiveness to be satisfactory. It was a bit hard to follow in a few sections, but seemed to contain all pertinent information.
Harold Martin CIS512 – Section 005016 Week 10 Critique of Student Paper – Carlos
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing? All of the required sections were included within the writers’ document, and were adequate. There was no conclusion, but conclusions are not a mandatory part of IEEE papers according to the guidelines we were provided when writing our papers.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain. Although the document was broken apart by various fonts, I had a hard time following what was a main section and what was a subheading or new section. Carlos did provide subheadings as I did see italicized portions of text; it just seemed to me not to be uniform and easy to follow. Uniformity wasn’t missing a bit.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain. The material was well organized and began from the very beginning in the discussion of Data Storage Technology. The flow was logical, clear and easy to understand; however, it was not easy to follow in the sense of knowing where one section ended and the next section began.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). - Assertion: I rate assertion as Strong; because, although I had some issues following the layout of the paper, the actual content of the paper was clear, understandable and valid. The topics were presented in such a way that they emphasized and brought importance to the topic being discussed. Other than difficulty in following the flow of the paper, it was well thought out and well written.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). - Evidence: Overall, the document was relevant, strong and credible; however, he utilized only one reference. I think a few more references, providing varying or supporting viewpoints, in addition to some material outside of the books content may have been nice. The guidelines for writing a IEEE paper calls for listing at least 3 references as I recall. The graphs, tables, charts and evidence that he provided throughout his paper were adequate and ensured reader understanding. Additionally, the requirement was to provide a 10 page paper, and Carlos was only able to provide 7 full pages. More pages may have enabled him to provide more strength and credibility to the paper.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). - Organization: Satisfactory - The concepts and ideas that were presented by Carlos were great, but following the layout was difficult at some points in the paper. The flow of the paper was correct and all ideas did flow in the correct direction, but for the reasons indicated regarding the fonts used for sections and subsections, I rate this as Satisfactory.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) - Mechanics: I rate this Strong because Carlos did take time to ensure the paper had correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. There were a couple of occasions where there was incorrect spacing between sections, but overall it was a very strong document, from the mechanical perspective.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why? - Overall effectiveness: I rate this Strong. Although the sections were not laid out in the most efficient manner, I feel, the paper still made a lot of sense just as Carlos wrote it, and overall, it was constructed strongly and soundly. The ideas presented along with the evidence and charts, graphics, tables helped ensure that the reader walked away with a complete understanding of the topic being discussed. Overall I think Carlos did a very good job on his paper.
**Sample**
ReplyDelete1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
These sections appear to be adequate.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
Yes, however, I believe the section titled Data Storage types could have been better written if subheadings and separation was used. That section was quite confusing while trying to read.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
The material was ordered in a logical way, however, the paper was hard to follow due #2 above.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I believe it was satisfactory. The information given was of great importance, however wasn't written in a clear manner.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I believe the relevance, strength, and credibility of this paper was strong.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The arrangement of idea's was done well, and guiding the reader was pretty good, but not great. There seemed to be a lot of repetition in the paper which caused loss of guidance.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
Spelling was satisfactory. There were a few words that were improperly used, such as personnel for personal, forth and or instead of for, hosed instead of housed, combing instead of combining. Punctuation was very weak. Throughout the document, there was a complete lack of proper comma usage, causing a lot of confusion while trying to read.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
I believe the overall effectiveness to be satisfactory. It was a bit hard to follow in a few sections, but seemed to contain all pertinent information.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHarold Martin
ReplyDeleteCIS512 – Section 005016
Week 10 Critique of Student Paper – Carlos
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
All of the required sections were included within the writers’ document, and were adequate. There was no conclusion, but conclusions are not a mandatory part of IEEE papers according to the guidelines we were provided when writing our papers.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
Although the document was broken apart by various fonts, I had a hard time following what was a main section and what was a subheading or new section. Carlos did provide subheadings as I did see italicized portions of text; it just seemed to me not to be uniform and easy to follow. Uniformity wasn’t missing a bit.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
The material was well organized and began from the very beginning in the discussion of Data Storage Technology. The flow was logical, clear and easy to understand; however, it was not easy to follow in the sense of knowing where one section ended and the next section began.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
- Assertion: I rate assertion as Strong; because, although I had some issues following the layout of the paper, the actual content of the paper was clear, understandable and valid. The topics were presented in such a way that they emphasized and brought importance to the topic being discussed. Other than difficulty in following the flow of the paper, it was well thought out and well written.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
- Evidence: Overall, the document was relevant, strong and credible; however, he utilized only one reference. I think a few more references, providing varying or supporting viewpoints, in addition to some material outside of the books content may have been nice. The guidelines for writing a IEEE paper calls for listing at least 3 references as I recall. The graphs, tables, charts and evidence that he provided throughout his paper were adequate and ensured reader understanding. Additionally, the requirement was to provide a 10 page paper, and Carlos was only able to provide 7 full pages. More pages may have enabled him to provide more strength and credibility to the paper.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
- Organization: Satisfactory - The concepts and ideas that were presented by Carlos were great, but following the layout was difficult at some points in the paper. The flow of the paper was correct and all ideas did flow in the correct direction, but for the reasons indicated regarding the fonts used for sections and subsections, I rate this as Satisfactory.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
- Mechanics: I rate this Strong because Carlos did take time to ensure the paper had correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. There were a couple of occasions where there was incorrect spacing between sections, but overall it was a very strong document, from the mechanical perspective.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
- Overall effectiveness: I rate this Strong. Although the sections were not laid out in the most efficient manner, I feel, the paper still made a lot of sense just as Carlos wrote it, and overall, it was constructed strongly and soundly. The ideas presented along with the evidence and charts, graphics, tables helped ensure that the reader walked away with a complete understanding of the topic being discussed. Overall I think Carlos did a very good job on his paper.