Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Shirley Davis

Sunday Ugoji, Alexander Peter, Shirley Davis:"High-Speed LANs," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. LeeSeptember 14, 2009 at 8:35 PM

    Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    Your paper is well organized and all the basic sections were present with the exception of the conclusion, which is unfortunate because it would have provided you to provide a summarization of your chosen subject matter, and to inject you prospective or findings.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    For the most part, you did a good job with subheadings and clarifying the information in each prospective section, with the exception of Section III. It appears you may have intended to delete this section, but failed to remove the Roman numeral III. In addition, the Section IV header appears improperly formatted or has too many spaces.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? Explain.
    Your paper does logically flow and clearly explains the subject matter. The headings provide the reader with a direct and informative roadmap through the paper. In addition, your paper delivered on its promise. As a summary, the paper should present the highlights of the chapter and you handled that task well.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Rating: Satisfactory
    In most of the sections clarity and importance of information was good. Nevertheless, the grammatical and formatting issues weekend the paper.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    The paper contains a good technical summary. You properly cited all works, and as a result, I considered the information provided as credible or factually correct and relevant.
    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Over all I rated your paper satisfactory
    Your paper was very organized; your ideas flowed, and for the most part your headings and subheadings provide a good path for the reader to follow. Unfortunately, the errors in grammar, the use of tenses and format errors distracts from seems to be a solid technical summary.
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    Rating: Satisfactory Overall spelling and use of punctuation were good; there were a few grammatical errors with respect to the use of past, present, and future tense and the use of “passive voice”. In your introduction, the uses of tense cause me to have to re-read a couple of sentences, to get an understanding of your point. However, overall I rated you paper satisfactory.
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?

    Over all the paper is satisfactory, the information is relevant with respect to the technical nature of the paper, but the rating would have been better in the absence of the formatting and grammar errors.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)