Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Andrew Mazzola

Pankaj Patel, Alexander Peter, Andrew Mazzola:"Congestion Control: In Data Networks and Internets," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. avmazzolaSeptember 16, 2009 at 6:24 PM

    1.Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    Yes, the basic sections where there. The only one that was missing is an Abstract.

    2.Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    Yes, but it was hard to follow as, in some instances such as, where sub headings, and which where bullet lists. The paper should have been formatted properly.

    3.Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    It seems to follow the book, but there are some sections that do match what is in the book.

    4.Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Weak on both.

    5.Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Each was weak

    6.Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory,
    Weak).
    Satisfactory on all
    7.Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    Very weak. Need to use proof reading.

    8.Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
    The overall effectiveness of this paper is weak. The paper started off ok, but as he got farther into it, the headings got messed up. Also, proper spacing made it hard to follow. If he took the time to proof read and to allow someone else to proof read it would have made it easier to read.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)