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?
ReplyDeleteThe Introduction and Conclusion were very adequate and to the point. The introduction as well as other parts of the paper provided every single source used.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
Yes, the writer used headers as well as subheadings throughout the paper. Most of the headings included subheadings and these were differenced by letters.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, and easy to follow? Explain.
Yes, the material was ordered in a logical way. It started with the introduction which provided the definition of the CPU, as well as the history. It was followed by CPU operations, actions, instructions to future trends. The material was well researched and provided very good information.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
Regarding clarity and importance I would rate this paper as strong. All the points are understandable and within the context. Easy to follow, the transition sentences help for smooth reading. The graphics are great complements to the topics.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I would rate the evidence as satisfactory. There are several sources which makes the reader have credibility over the paper.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
I would rate the organization of the paper as strong. The information was very detailed and broken into parts to help the reader follow the lecture.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
I would rate the paper as strong. Most of the information was researched from the book, so there are not much spelling, grammar or punctuation problems.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
I would rate this paper as strong. It provided a lot of information and detail. It seems that a good amount of time was spent doing this paper. All the information has been cited although it would have been better if it would have provided more analysis from the writer in other topics besides the conclusion, so we could have seen his point of view.