1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing? A very adequate Intro, Conclusion and use of works cited. Claudia created excellent flow for her paper.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain. Great use of headings to show the flow of user needs through to implementation of a software process.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain. Yea, broken into logical paragraphs that the numerical headers displayed.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). Claudia used clear definitions of application development and terms found within, nice work for those of us who aren't in applications or software. Claudia illustratated a major key of successful interpretation between technical and non-technical people.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). Again, Strong, driving the point of being able to describe and create a facility where both sides of development can contribute.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). very strong flow and process definition.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) Strong
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why? Claudia worked a great paper. As I stated before, I am not a software developer so this paper was enlightening for me. Good Work!
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.)
ReplyDeleteadequate? If not, what is missing?
A very adequate Intro, Conclusion and use of works cited. Claudia
created excellent flow for her paper.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the
text? Explain.
Great use of headings to show the flow of user needs through to
implementation of a software process.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to
follow? Explain.
Yea, broken into logical paragraphs that the numerical headers displayed.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong,
Satisfactory, Weak).
Claudia used clear definitions of application development and terms
found within, nice work for those of us who aren't in applications or
software. Claudia illustratated a major key of successful
interpretation between technical and non-technical people.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility:
(Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
Again, Strong, driving the point of being able to describe and create
a facility where both sides of development can contribute.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the
reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
very strong flow and process definition.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation:
(Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
Strong
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
Claudia worked a great paper. As I stated before, I am not a software
developer so this paper was enlightening for me. Good Work!
Thank you Christopher for your kind review :-)
ReplyDelete