Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Maria Abel

Michael C. Hunsaker, Alexander Peter, Maria Abel:"High-Speed LANs," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. cis532September 14, 2009 at 6:46 PM

    Reviewed by Maria Abel

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.)
    adequate? If not, what is missing?
    This paper contains an abstract, introduction, references and
    acknowledgement, but is missing the conclusion. The sections included
    in the paper were adequate and flowed nicely. Another observation is
    that there is a lot of extra white space that should be avoided in the
    future.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the
    text? Explain.
    Yes, Michael used sub-headings that explained the sections well. It
    was helpful to get a feel for the next session before reading.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy
    to follow? Explain.
    Yes, the material was addressed logically and easy to follow. Words
    were chosen correctly for the audience.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong,
    Satisfactory, Weak).
    This paper is strong, because it was written with clear and concise
    information. The information contained in the paper was important to
    the subject. This paper would be helpful to non-technical
    individuals. A conclusion would have made a bigger impact on the
    audience, because it could have tied together the pros/cons of wi-fi
    and wired LAN’s.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility:
    (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    The information in this paper was very relative to the subject. The
    text explained the subject in-depth with credible resources. I would
    rate this paper strong on evidence.
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the
    reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    This paper flowed well. The sections were ordered appropriately for
    the reader to follow and comprehend.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation:
    (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    The mechanics were strong, because there were minimal grammar
    mistakes and no punctuation or spelling errors. I would recommend
    having a non-technical person proof read papers to find any grammar,
    spelling or punctuation errors.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaining why?
    This paper was overall strong, because it explained everything
    listed in the abstract. Importantly the author held my interest while
    reading. As stated above, the conclusion would have had more impact
    on readers, but it left me wanting to use ‘Google’ to gain more
    knowledge on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael of HerndonSeptember 15, 2009 at 6:43 PM

    Thanks for the nice comments Maria. In my submitted paper there were some white spaces due to the placing of figures and tables. When it was transfer to here even more white spaces appeared!
    By the way, from what I read a conclusion is not needed in IEEE format.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)