Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Jude Bowman

Marcus J. Golden, Alexander Peter, Jude Bowman:"Probability and Stochastic Processes," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. jrobojockSeptember 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    The basic sections were adequate, save for one fault. I think that it would have been useful to have a definitions section, as I would have been lost if not already versed in the matter. The references were adequate, but I was under the impression that more were needed to fulfill the project requirements.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    Subheadings were adequate, but due to the fact that the paper was well organized, they were not really needed to a large extent.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    The strongest point of the paper was the logical order. The author did a good job in ordering the paper in a clear and concise manner, without being too overly scientific. The paper was also properly “wordy” as I find like papers too complex and resultantly boring.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    I believe that the paper was strongly clear, but the only thing that I would have changed would have been the Axiomatic Definition section, which was confusing, due to the use of events A and B. A real world scenario would have been better. The paper was good nevertheless and was important in explaining probability types.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    The paper was merely a report from the book and this question is really not applicable.
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    The paper was organized well and was easy to read as a result. I think I actually could have taken pointers from the writer on such mechanics as his biggest strength was a logical format.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    The paper was mechanically strong and had no great faults showing good proofreading.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
    The paper was quite effective, rating a strong rating, as it was easy to read and was not overly scientific.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)