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?
ReplyDeleteYes the basic sections were all present and in the correct order.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
Yes, Darryl used subheads well. The subheadings he used clearly gave the reader insight into what was to follow.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
Yes, the material flowed and made logical sense, from his introduction to his conclusion. Each step clearly leading into the next.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The Assertion was Satisfactory. The clarity was Strong. The Importance was Satisfactory.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
Evidince was Strong. Relevence was Strong. Strength was Satisfactory. The Credibility was Strong.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The Organization, arrangement of ideas, and the guiding of the reader were all Strong.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
All of the mechanics were strong. Have to love spell check and grammer check.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
The overall effectiveness in my opinion was Strong. I felt that Darryl clearly and fluidly explained why IPv4 is and has to disappear and IPv6 has to take over. I found it to be a very readable and interest synopsis of the IPv4 vs IPv6 issue. I did think however that we wer suppose to use the IEEE template for our paper, and I thought we were suppose to summarize an entire chapter from the book.