Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(51)
-
▼
September
(44)
- Reviewer: Desiree Dixon
- Reviewer: April Stewart
- Reviewer: Robin Cole
- Reviewer: Shirley Davis
- Reviewer: Scott Maker
- Reviewer: Sunday Ugoji
- Reviewer: Paulo Pires
- Reviewer: Stephen Andrews
- Reviewer: Regina Beres
- Reviewer: Pradeepa Thushyanthan
- Reviewer: Samantha Liverpool
- Reviewer: Scott Scranton
- Reviewer: Morteza Ghazai
- Reviewer: Marcus Golden
- Reviewer: Andrew Mazzola
- Reviewer: Patricia Hughes
- Reviewer: Maria Abel
- Reviewer: Michael Hunsaker
- Reviewer: Jude Bowman
- Reviewer: George Mitchell
- Reviewer: Joseph Harley
- Reviewer: Darryl Jones
- Reviewer: Donald Beliveau
- Reviewer: Ahmed Toure
- Reviewer: Pankaj Patel:
- Reviewer: Belton Williams
- Reviewer: Ursula Cana
- Reviewer: William Haggwood
- Reviewer: Prabaharan Poornachandran
- Reviewer: Wayne O Wright
- Reviewer: Michele Hermosura
- Reviewer: Ricky Elum
- Reviewer: Jacques Stover
- Reviewer: Shany Thompson
- Reviewer: Felicia McBride
- Reviewer: Jeffrey Dorso
- Reviewer: Christopher Collier
- Reviewer: Claudia Viegas
- Reviewer: Bryan Minor
- Reviewer: Donald Fuller
- Reviewer: Calvin J Johnson III
- Reviewer: Danee Trapp
- Reviewer: Siraya Sawetrattanaroj
- Summer 2009
-
▼
September
(44)
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
ReplyDeleteThe introduction is very thorough and describes exactly what this paper plans to address. Although this paper gives a good explanation of the topics that were addressed, I was unable to find a conclusion section to solidify the major points. The reference section of this paper is present, but because there are no numbers in the paper or in the reference section, there is no way for this reviewer to link the references to the specific places they were used in this paper.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
The writer did an excellent job of prefacing each section with a subheading. Each technology explained in this paper contained a separate subheading which made it very easy for this reviewer to follow.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? Explain.
The material is laid out in a very logical manner. The writer was consistent in always explaining how the topics covered related to Ethernet and then to the Internet. It is easy to navigate if a reader wanted to follow the paper as written or even if the reader wanted to read all about congestion control with regards to Ethernet and then to Internet.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
It is this reviewer's opinion that the writer was very clear in presenting what was stated in both the abstract and the introduction. The topic alone is very important because congestion control is something that can mean the difference between a thriving company and a noncompetitive company. For all of the above reasons, this reviewer would rate this section as strong.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The writer of this paper used screen shots of actual bandwidth tests performed from his own computer as well as algorithms and charts from previously published materials. This to me merits rating this section as strong.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The organization of this paper is very logical and easily guides the reader through the various topics. This reviewer rates this section as strong.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
The writer took great care in constructing this paper. I found absolutely no spelling errors and only one minor misuse of “a/an”. This paper also contains no punctuation errors. The reviewer rates this section as strong.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
This reviewer gives the writer an overall strong rating on this paper. The only issues noted by this reviewer are the lack of a conclusion section, no way of tying references to cited work, and one minor grammatical error.