Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(51)
-
▼
September
(44)
- Reviewer: Desiree Dixon
- Reviewer: April Stewart
- Reviewer: Robin Cole
- Reviewer: Shirley Davis
- Reviewer: Scott Maker
- Reviewer: Sunday Ugoji
- Reviewer: Paulo Pires
- Reviewer: Stephen Andrews
- Reviewer: Regina Beres
- Reviewer: Pradeepa Thushyanthan
- Reviewer: Samantha Liverpool
- Reviewer: Scott Scranton
- Reviewer: Morteza Ghazai
- Reviewer: Marcus Golden
- Reviewer: Andrew Mazzola
- Reviewer: Patricia Hughes
- Reviewer: Maria Abel
- Reviewer: Michael Hunsaker
- Reviewer: Jude Bowman
- Reviewer: George Mitchell
- Reviewer: Joseph Harley
- Reviewer: Darryl Jones
- Reviewer: Donald Beliveau
- Reviewer: Ahmed Toure
- Reviewer: Pankaj Patel:
- Reviewer: Belton Williams
- Reviewer: Ursula Cana
- Reviewer: William Haggwood
- Reviewer: Prabaharan Poornachandran
- Reviewer: Wayne O Wright
- Reviewer: Michele Hermosura
- Reviewer: Ricky Elum
- Reviewer: Jacques Stover
- Reviewer: Shany Thompson
- Reviewer: Felicia McBride
- Reviewer: Jeffrey Dorso
- Reviewer: Christopher Collier
- Reviewer: Claudia Viegas
- Reviewer: Bryan Minor
- Reviewer: Donald Fuller
- Reviewer: Calvin J Johnson III
- Reviewer: Danee Trapp
- Reviewer: Siraya Sawetrattanaroj
- Summer 2009
-
▼
September
(44)
1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
ReplyDeleteIt would have been nice to see where the work was actually cited within the paper. Even though the writer provided references for the paper, it in unclear within the paper where those works were used.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
The writer did use subheadings to clarify the sections of the paper.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
Some parts of the paper were a bit confusing, but not due to content. There was an issue with the formatting of the paper so that it did not flow like the examples that were provided to the class.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
The paper was satisfactory. Again the formatting played a big part in how the paper flowed. Also when the writer got to Section 2, the paper went from being written in paragraphs to being written as numbered points.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
This section was weak. Even though the writer provided references at the end of the paper, it is unclear where the writer used the material of others within the paper. This does not follow IEEE guidelines.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
Satisfactory. The paper started off well guiding the reader on what was being discussed, but after section 1.8, the paper went from being in paragraph format to being numbered points. It would have been great to get a little more “meat” in Section 2. I must give kudos for the generous use of diagrams in the paper to help describe queuing analysis.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) Satisfactory.
There were a few grammatical errors which made the reading not flow correctly such as “When uses the following disciplines;” and “versatile software systems has made the technique easily queues;”
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaining why? Satisfactory.
The major issue was with the formatting of the paper. I took me a couple of tries to understand how the paper flowed from one page to the next. I believe if the formatting were done correctly, my review of this paper would have been stronger