Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Morteza Ghazai

Patricia A. Hughes, Alexander Peter, Morteza Ghazai:"Technologies from the ARPANET," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. MortezaSeptember 18, 2009 at 3:11 PM

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

    Yes, everything was in place. IEE template was carefully used.

    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    Yes each section has appropriate subheading and numbering that makes it separate from previous section while keeping sub-sections connected.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.

    All sections are showing their logical relevance to the main subject while staying focus and easy to follow all the way to the end.

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

    The paper’s Assertion was Strong. Using of formatting, bullet points makes is very easy to learn about the subject and follow along. Reviewing the first chapter in the textbook proves that author tried hard to summarize the chapter and focus on the main points.

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

    It’s Satisfactory around this item. It could’ve been Strong if there were a little more examples and evidence such as graphs or pictures to entertain the reader.

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

    This paper was Strong as far as Organization. Arrangement of ideas were put together strongly, Author did a good job of trying to guide the reader through the material but it could’ve elaborated on each section a little bit more.

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

    Grammar and punctuations were good and except couple of places that word scientific was misspelled as sciencitific everything else was in order. I’d rate this paper as Satisfactory for this topic.

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

    This paper was overall Satisfactory as it is relaying the message and clearly summarizes the text book chapter as the whole purpose of it.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)