Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Michael Hunsaker

Maria Abel, Alexander Peter, Michael Hunsaker:"Summary of Interior Routing Protocols," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Michael of HerndonSeptember 17, 2009 at 8:05 PM

    Post One
    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    Answer: Judging this paper by the IEEE template we were provided, this paper is missing the following:
    1. Author info on the bottom left corner of the first page
    2. Author biography on last page.
    The rest of the sections are there and mostly conform to the IEEE template we were provided. The paper is barely four pages long which seems quite short for a ten page report. There are three figures in the paper. Strangely, two required “QuickTime and a decompressor” to view, so I couldn’t see them. I would have liked to have seen more figures. The paper includes twenty-two references but only two that were external to our textbook.


    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain
    Answer: The paper is Strong using headings and subheadings down to the tertiary level, for sections I and II. However, the subheadings for the rest of the paper are Weak--the outline for using primary, secondary, and tertiary headings correctly breaks down. For example in section III the headings are:
    III. Primary. Good.
    A. Incorrect blend of secondary and tertiary headings.
    1) Tertiary. Good
    2) Tertiary. Good
    3) Tertiary. Good
    A. This probably should have been labeled B. Incorrect blend of primary and tertiary headings

    In section IV the headings are:
    IV. Primary. Good.
    A. Incorrect blend of secondary and tertiary headings.
    A Incorrect numbering and incorrect blend of secondary and tertiary headings
    B. Incorrect numbering and incorrect blend of secondary and tertiary headings
    A Incorrect numbering and incorrect blend of secondary and tertiary headings
    1) Tertiary. Good

    This is where I got my information:
    “Primary headings are enumerated by Roman numerals and centered above the text.
    Secondary headings are enumerated by capital letters followed by followed by periods, flush left, upper and lower case, and italic.
    “Tertiary headings are enumerated by Arabic numerals followed by parentheses. They are indented one em, and run into the text in their sections, italic, upper and lower case, and followed by a colon.
    “Quaternary headings are identical to tertiary headings, except that they are indented two ems, lower case letters are used as labels, and only the first letter of the heading is capitalized.” (From IEEE Editorial Style Manual. http://www.ieee.org/
    portal/cms_docs_iportals/iportals/publications/authors/transjnl/stylemanual.pdf)


    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain
    Answer: In the introduction, the paper clearly states that it is going to discuss routing principles and two Interior Routing Protocols: RIP and OSPF. The Primary headings nicely outline the topics of each section. RIP and OSPF are indeed discussed. However, if some of the materials in the later sections have been ordered better (see replies to questions 2 and 6), the flow, clarity, and logic would have been much better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael of HerndonSeptember 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM

    Post Two
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    Answer: Sentences would have been clearer if there had been commas after some of the beginning phrases. I also believe the report should have been read out load. If this had been done it would have caught this sentence: “Some of the drawbacks include heavier burden on routers, requires more configuration, routing decisions can be outdated, more congestion, creates fluttering and looping. More congestion can be created because the routers may react too quickly in choosing alternative paths, that it would backup traffic in those networks.”
    I rate this section as being Satisfactory.


    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Answer: Part of the assignment included summarizing a chapter from the textbook. This paper did a very good job summarized chapter 15. By its very nature of summarizing the chapter, the paper is relevant and credible. However, I believe the strength of the paper could have been improved greatly by including more information, details, or outside references. Three and a half pages are very brief.
    Score for this is Satisfactory.


    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Answer: I am somewhat picky in answering question two because better headings would have helped the arrangement of ideas, particularly in the later sections. For example, section IV begins with two good paragraphs on RIP. Then there is section A Problems, section A Split Horizon Rule, section B. Poisoned Reverse, and a third section A Packet Format. Pocket Format should have been moved ahead of Problems. I think most writers will put weaknesses and problems of a topic at the end of a section. Looking in the text book, the author considers split horizon rule and poisoned reverse two of the problems with RIP. Problems, Split Horizon Rule, and Poisoned Reverse should have been grouped together.
    Overall, I would rate compliance to this section as Satisfactory.


    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    Answer: There were a few spelling and word choice errors-Internet has a capital I, apposed is spelled opposed, it’ should be its, concerning should be replaced with “disconcerting.” I don’t think this document was spelled checked.
    In the Reference section, the title of the book Network Architecture and Analysis should be in italics and not within quotation marks
    Figures are not labeled correctly. “Fig. [whole number ]. [caption].“ should appear at the bottom of the figure.
    I would rate this section as Weak.

    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaining why?
    Answer: Overall, I would have to say it was Satisfactory based on the scores above. This would have been a much better paper if it had been proofread a couple of times for completeness, correctness, and clarity. Attention to details could have been better.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)