Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Marcus Golden

Jude Bowman, Alexander Peter, Marcus Golden:"Enterprise Architecture: History and Analysis of ATM High Speed Networks," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. nwknjgirlSeptember 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?

    The basic sections were covered. The abstract was explained very well, I knew what to expect throughout the rest of the report

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

    The subheadings in this report were used accurately; they let you know what the next section was about.

    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.

    The report was easy to read and understand.

    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).

    The assertion of the paper was very strong especially in the graphs that were used.

    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).

    I believe the evidence was strong because different references were used.

    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).

    The arrangement was strong, it started in the abstract and the paper was easy to read and understand.

    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)

    The mechanics of the paper were done very well. You can tell because paper was easy to understand.

    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?

    The overall presentation was excellent. The subject was easy to read and understand.

    ReplyDelete
  2. MarcGoldSeptember 20, 2009 at 9:23 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?

    The basic sections were adequate indeed. The abstract let the reader know what the paper was going to be about.

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

    The writer had clear and precise subheadings to direct the paper appropriately.

    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.

    The reader had no problem following the report, very clear.

    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).

    Strong rating for the paper's clarity and important subject matter.

    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).

    The writer used various sources to support their paper.

    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).

    The paper was organized very well, and the paper was an easy reading flow.

    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)

    Strong Mechanics here, the reader took time to make corrections if any were needed before submission.

    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?

    Strong effectiveness due to easy readibilty in an otherwise technical subject.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)