Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Reviewer: Robin Cole

April Stewart, Alexander Peter, Robin Cole:"Enterprise Architecture: Data and Network Communication Technology," SU-IEEE, CIS512005016:05,2009
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. AprilSeptember 20, 2009 at 5:05 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? All the sections were cited correctly and actually showed detailed citations.

    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text?
    All subheadings were clarified and were done very well in the paper.

    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? The order of the paper was done very well could read the paper with a nice flow and each part connected very well.

    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    The paper was strong i believe that it was done well. The introduction stated what the paper was going to be about and the paper stated each part in the paper in that chronological order.

    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). The credibility was strong everything that was stated in chapter 5 of system architecture was in

    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). The organization of the paper was strong and the flow the paper was well done.

    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    Grammar was satisfactory stuck to the basic and didn’t elaborate in the vocabulary that much.

    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why? Overall the paper was strong and I believe that it stated everything that was in the introduction.
    However, I believe the summary could have been a little more detailed. But overall the paper was strong and I believe the person did a very good job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CalvinSeptember 20, 2009 at 7:17 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    Yes
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    Yes, the subheadings have me an idea of what the user would be talking about.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    Yes, the information was in a logical order that made the paper easy to read and understand what the writer was trying to say.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Satisfactory
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Satisfactory
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Strong

    ReplyDelete
  3. robincSeptember 20, 2009 at 8:55 PM

    1. Were the basic sections (introduction,
    conclusion, cited, etc) adequate? If not,
    what is missing?
    Yes, all of the basic sections are present.

    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to
    clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    Yes, the subheadings clarified the sections.

    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was
    logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    The information/ideas within the text did
    not flow. There were key points in the
    sections that should have been included,
    thus giving a good flow of ideas and
    understanding of the topic being discussed.

    4. Rate the paper on assertion: clarity,
    importance: (strong, satisfactory, weak).
    Clarity and importance were satisfactory to
    weak. More information should have been
    included in the sections to give the reader
    a good understanding of the section being
    discussed.

    5. Rate the paper on evidence: relevance,
    strength, credibility: (strong,
    satisfactory, weak).
    Relevence, strength, and credibility were
    satisfactory. More resources should have
    been included to further expand on the
    section.

    6. Rate the paper on organization: arrangement
    of ideas, guiding the reader: (strong,
    satisfactory, weak).
    Arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader
    were satisfactory to weak. Again, the
    expaination of the sections needed work
    regarding more information and expaination,
    which would make for a better flow in
    assisting the reader with understanding the
    topic of discussion.

    7. Rate the paper on mechanics: spelling,
    grammer, punctuation: (strong, satisfactory,
    weak).
    Spelling, grammer, and punctuation was
    satisfactory; four typos. Spacing was off in
    the Introduction and the three bullets in
    the Modulation Methods section. The word
    summary appeared twice in the Summary
    section.

    8. Overall effectiveness: (strong,
    satisfactory, weak) and explain why?
    Overall effectiveness was satisfactory to
    weak. More explaination should have been
    done on each section. Also, there were seven
    section that were not included, that were
    good key points in the chapter, that would
    have given a good range of dicussion on Data
    and Network Communication Technology.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)