Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Reviewer: Desiree Dixon

Sheila Johnson, Alexander Peter, Desiree Dixon:"High-Speed LANs," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. Sheila ClarkeSeptember 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?

    The basic sections were covered. The abstract was good, there were no citations for references.

    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.

    The subheadings in this report were used precisely.

    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? Explain.
    The report was ordered and logical.
    The report was informative and straight forward.

    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Clarity- easy to understand good flow -Strong .

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

    The evidence was satisfactory. Even though the references were few the paper was very informative.

    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).

    Satisfactory the use of figures, graphs and data was informative and logical the paper was very well planned.

    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)

    The mechanics of the paper were strong.

    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?

    The overall presentation was strong. The subject was easily explained .

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)