Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Ricky Elum

Michele Hermosura, Alexander Peter, Ricky Elum: "EA: What are Computer Networks?," SU-IEEE, CIS512005016:05,2009

1 comment:

  1. 1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    All of the basic sections included the Introduction, Conclusion, and work cited page were adequate.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    The writer used roman numerals as sub headings to clarify the topics dealing with her proposal.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    By the writer using roman numerals as sub text to clarify the topics, the material was logical, clean, and easy to follow because not only did the use the roman mumerals, but named each numeral as sub text related to the topic.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    I would rate this paper on a Strong scale rating because the information was presentable, accurate, and provided charts and graphs for clarity.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    On evidence presented, relevance, strength and credibility i would rate this paper strong.
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    On organization, each section was broken down and clarified in detail, and I would rate it strong.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    On grammar, the paper lacks errors and writer must have used spell check and read over carefully there presentation to make sure grammactical errors were ommitted.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why?
    Overall effectiveness, i would rate this paper strong because of how detailed it is in regards to having graphs, charts, and accurate information related to the topic.

    ReplyDelete