Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Darryl Jones

Donald Beliveau, Alexander Peter, Darryl Jones:"Asynchronous Transfer Mode," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. DarrylSeptember 16, 2009 at 6:45 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    Yes the basics were presents. The funnel approach was appropriate because the reader may not know anything about the subject of the paper. It went from introducing ATM and how it fit as a communications protocol and then went into specifics of ATM.

    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    The subheadings were well done. Once the reader read the first page and was submerged, the headings would allow the reader to skip to sections of interest without reading the entire report. The use of visual cues also allowed someone who was not a subject matter expert to see images along with text to describe what was being explained.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain
    The paper was ordered in a logical way and presented in a clear-cut style that was easy to follow. The author took the approach, that the reader knew nothing about the subject, which is the best way to present a paper to a general audience.
    Yes, the paper was ordered in a logical way. The paper clearly and slowly introduced ATM, it uses, and how it is relevant to technology today.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    I give the rating of strong in both areas of clarity and importance. This paper was very easy to read. I do not think a person outside of IT would have a problem reading and understanding this paper.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    I think the paper is relevant to IT, and I give it a rating of strong for credibility and evidence. The author clearly states where the sources for the paper are. In the abstract and in the references sections. It clearly notated that the source came from chapter 5 in our text
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    I give the paper a rating of strong on the arrangement of ideas guiding the reader. The language that was used was not over the top along with the use of bullets to point out strong points help the reader not to glaze over important facts.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    The grammar of the paper did not hinder me from reading it; that is the most import thing with grammar beyond being correct. It should not be overly complex in that the reader has to work to get through it.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
    Overall, the paper was effective; it receives a strong rating. Its purpose was to explain ATM, and that was done. The only thing I would suggest would be to use more references. The reader may look upon the paper as being one sided or not having enough depth to it. Overall, this was a well written paper.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)