Friday, September 11, 2009

Reviewer: Bryan Minor

Donald Fuller, Alexander Peter, Bryan Minor: "Computer Networks," SU-IEEE, CIS512005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. UnknownSeptember 17, 2009 at 8:11 AM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing. Donald's paper was packaged together extremely well. I think his paper flowed exactly the way he intended.

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

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing. Donald's paper was packaged together extremely well. I think his paper flowed exactly the way he intended.

    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain. Donald broke his paper on Computer Networks into 7 subheadings excluding the conclusion which would have been the 8th. He thoroughly provided in-depth details explaining the subheadings. For example, subheading 1 which was Network Topology, he covered the 3 basic topologies which are Star, Bus and Ring. He provided concise details explaining the various networks and took it a step further to point out the advantages and disadvantages of each network topology in addition to providing diagrams on such.

    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear and easy to follow? Explain. Donald's paper was extremely clear and very understandable. He took the time to clearly express his thoughts on the subject matter. Other than the acryonyms used (which one would have to research to understand), I think he did an excellent "stand back" approach to writing his paper. It seems like once he wrote his paper, he then turned himself into the reader to make sure what he wanted to express came across the way he very well intended.

    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: I would consider this to be strong.

    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, weak). I would consider this to be strong.

    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangment of ides, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). I would consider this to be strong.

    Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). I would consider the mechanics of the paper as being strong as I detected no grammatical errors or sentence structures being confusing.

    Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why? I think the overall effectiveness of the paper was strong. He dove heavily into the aspects of computer networks. His paper seemed to focus heavily on the LAN (local area network) providing CSU/DSU weren't mentioned which are the devices used to break out channels of T-1 circuits which could be point to point or frame relay and transports such data over transmission mediums which is normally required in a WAN environment (communicating from building A to building B). Trust me, this isn't to take away from Donald's paper because it shows he put plenty of thought and time into his paper.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)