Friday, September 11, 2009

Reviewer: Claudia Viegas

Christopher Collier;Alexander Peter;Claudia A. Viegas: "Enterprise Architecture: OSI Model," SU-IEEE, CIS512005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. ClaudiaSeptember 11, 2009 at 8:00 AM

    Enterprise Architecture OSI Model by: Christopher Collier (Reviewed by C. Viegas)
    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    a. Paper has all the parts needed; it contains an Abstract, Introduction, various parts in the body of the paper, Conclusion and References.
    b. Only suggestion is format of these areas.
    c. Numbering of the sections reversed, i.e., starting at Section VII ending in 0. Normally papers are written where sections start at “I” and follow through to the end of your sections that is why I think you may have inadvertently reversed. You may look at this sample on IEEE site: http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs/pubs/confpubcenter/pdfs/samplems.pdf where you can see their numbering scheme and also figure citations. I noticed that you have good figures but no labels, i.e, Fig. 1. The OSI Reference Model is broken down………. Would have been IEEE’s preferred numbering for figures in papers. Above link give you example for numbering figures as well.
    d. Bottom of page one has a statement that I am not sure you really intended for it to show up: Manuscript submission not applicable, September 6, 2009. C. Collier (email:crhisdc13@gmail.com)?
    e. White space on page 1. I suggest that if you make your Fig. a bit smaller I would fit in the white space at bottom, moving all the other sections up would shorten the number of pages and it would smooth out the last 2 pages, moving your acknowledgement and references to page 3 vs. page 4. Since the half right side of page 3 is blank.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    a. Yes. Christopher used proper heading to indicate which of the 7 layers he was discussing.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    a. Again, the only observation I would make is reversing the numbering system, i.e., section VII should be Section I, and work your way from there. This would guide the reader from “beginning to end” vs. end to beginning? I see that you started with No. VII to correspond to the 7th Layer.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    a. Paper is written in clear and plain English which to me makes it Strong. It is clear and concise yet provides the necessary info to understand the Seven Layers of the OSI Model.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    a. Very Strong. Paper did not deviate from the subject intended for discussion. Christopher started with the objective of dissecting the OSI model and that is exactly what he did while providing relevant data and examples, ie. Application Layer indicates how most of us are familiar with that layer and why. He then explained the connection between layers and how they relate to each other.
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    a. I will have to rate this Strong as well. His ideas and explanations are well organized, only thing I suggest, in order not to confuse readers, is to realign the numbers the natural way.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    a. Strong. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are all in check. Didn’t see any typographical errors. Uses of “periods” and “commas” are appropriate.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
    a. Overall, the paper is strong. It did what it said in the abstract that it would do. It explained in detail all the areas in the OSI model in a clear and concise manner. It used proper references where they were needed. Only suggestion I have is making the Conclusion a bit stronger to tie into the Introduction and wrap it up.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)