Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Michele Hermosura

Ricky Elum, Alexander Peter, Michele Hermosura: "System Administration," SU-IEEE, CIS512005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. MAHSeptember 20, 2009 at 5:43 AM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc) adequate? If not, what is missing? What was cited was correct, but some paragraphs were from the text just rephrased. Suggestion after writing your paper go back and compare to your references to make sure it does not seem like it was copied, then just cite it.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain. Section two could have been divided into different sections to make it more clear.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain. It was in the same order as the text. I had difficult time following in section two. The paragraphs did not lead you into next topic, just ended and the next one started.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: Weak
    5. Rate the paper on evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: Satisfactory
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: Weak to Satisfactory.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammer, punctuation: Missed punctuation in paragraph two of the introduction. The writer capitalized words like software and Infrastructure.
    8. Overall effectiveness. I thought it was weak. The paper was choppy and I did not feel like I knew what the System Administrators responsibilities were after reading the paper. I think use of good subheading would help make this a better paper.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)