Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: George Mitchell

Joseph T. Harley Jr., Alexander Peter, George Mitchell:"Introduction to Network Architecture and Analysis," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. GM3September 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GM3September 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing? The basic sections for the paper were adequate and present, though there could have been more sources cited for validity of the discussion presented in the paper.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain. The writer did use subheadings to clarify what each section of the concentrated on such Network History, Asynchrounous Transfer Mode, Speed and Quality of Service, TCP/IP and ATM Networks, as well as Introduction and Conclusion were used to name the sections of the paper.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    The poaper war ordered in way that is logical, clear, and easy to follow because it begins with the introduction and purpose of discussion for the paper, then goes in to netwroking history and defines key elements of Network Architecture and Analysis that were discussed in the course.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    I felt the paper was satisfactory because the writer did point out some key points of networking history and important subjects taught in Network Architecture and Analysis but could have elaborated more on TCP/IP protocol.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    The writer provided strong relevance and strength of evidence in the discussion but was weak on credibility because more sources should have been used to better validate his findings. Thus, evidence was satisafactory.
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).The writer’s organization was strong with his arrangemnt of ideas and guided the reader through the paper by describing his main focus and purpose of discussion in the introduction of the paper.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) The writer produced a paper with minimal spelling and grammatical errors. Thus, the paper is strong in mechanics.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why? I feel the overall effectiveness of the paper were satisfactory. The writer was strong in mechanics, organization, and satisfactory in assertion and evidence.He met the goals of his paper as outlined in the introduction and made his ideas clear to the reader. The paper is good informational peice on Network Architecture and Analysis, especially for those who are just entering the course and want to get some idea of what is going to be studied in the course. Not too shabby!! Good Work!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Prof. PeterSeptember 20, 2009 at 8:31 PM

    George Mitchell, Network Architecture and Analysis Ethernet

    1. Basic Actions - George included the necessary sections to his research paper.
    2. Subheadings - To me it was hard to follow because I his subheadings weren't bold enough to know what section ws next and what was to come.
    3. Material order - The paper itself was in material order and very logical.
    4. Assertion - Strong
    5. Evidence - Strong
    6. Organization - Satisfactory
    7. Mechanics - Strong
    8. Overall effectiveness - Overall the paper was enjoyable to read and very informative. Great job!

    April Renetta Rhodes

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)