Friday, September 11, 2009

Reviewer: Felicia McBride

Jeffrey Dorso, Alexander Peter, Felicia McBride: "Computer Networks Review," SU-IEEE, CIS512005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. FeeFeeSeptember 13, 2009 at 8:19 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    Yes, the paper included all basic sections and they did provide the adequate information.


    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    Yes, the writer did use subheadings in his paper to clarify the sections of the text. The writer first uses a subheading under the chapter describing computer networks. He lets us know the

    difference between the physical and logical applications in the basic computer network setup.


    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    Yes, the writer's material was ordered. I was able to follow along with it, just as I was able to follow along when I read the actual text on computer networks.

    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Strong. Clear, concise and to the point.

    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Strong. Very much on point , especially with the history of The Internet.

    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Strong. The writer followed the guidelines of the text as well as adding his own understanding to it. I was able to follow along without any issues.

    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    Satisfactory. There were some grammatical errors, but it did not take away for cohesiveness of the paper at all.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
    Strong. The paper, along with reading the text as well, gave me a greater understanding of computer networks. I also enjoyed the introduction, because it really did go in to depth of how computer networking arrived to what we have today.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)