1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing? Yes. Abstract, conclusion and citations were present and accurate. I would recommend more details in Abstract and Conclusion section. Maybe add an introduction lay out the sections headings to be covered in the paper. However, the abstract was very good in giving the big picture of the paper.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain. Subheadings were used, however, using the same from the book were confusing. The 1.6 were covered correctly under section 1, but 1.7 comes without warning. I would recommend removing numbering system.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain. Yes. As was explained in the abstract the main flow of the paper was followed.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).Strong. Paper was clear and easy to understand, excellent use of graphics.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). Strong. 29 citations- with most of them from separate sources. I would recommend not using wikipedia. That source is good for general understanding.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). Strong.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) Strong. MS Word is good at catching these errors.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why? Strong. Well organized, clear descriptions with supporting graphics, credible sources and use of citations for support. However, a lot of paper was straight from sources. Good collection of information, but would be better if the information were summarized to gain more interest. Importance of data storage could be better emphasized.
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing? Yes. Abstract, conclusion and citations were present and accurate. I would recommend more details in Abstract and Conclusion section. Maybe add an introduction lay out the sections headings to be covered in the paper. However, the abstract was very good in giving the big picture of the paper.
ReplyDelete2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain. Subheadings were used, however, using the same from the book were confusing. The 1.6 were covered correctly under section 1, but 1.7 comes without warning. I would recommend removing numbering system.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain. Yes. As was explained in the abstract the main flow of the paper was followed.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).Strong. Paper was clear and easy to understand, excellent use of graphics.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). Strong. 29 citations- with most of them from separate sources. I would recommend not using wikipedia. That source is good for general understanding.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). Strong.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) Strong. MS Word is good at catching these errors.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why? Strong. Well organized, clear descriptions with supporting graphics, credible sources and use of citations for support. However, a lot of paper was straight from sources. Good collection of information, but would be better if the information were summarized to gain more interest. Importance of data storage could be better emphasized.