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?
ReplyDeleteAll the basic parts were present on this paper. I felt it was structured properly and very adequate for presentation.
2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
There are headings present for each section but no subheadings. However, for the way the paper is written even without the subheadings the sections were well defined to the topic discussion.
3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
It seems that resource, CPU, and memory allocation should have been together with each other. However, process management splits two of these sections. Process management could have been moved up under management functions. Otherwise, everything else was in logical order.
4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). The clarity of the paper was very strong. The paper was very readable and does not require a dictionary to complete. The importance of the topic is satisfactory because the paper gives a general outline but does not come across as a must read.
5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). The information provided in this paper was weak. There were only 3 cited works in this paper. This leads one to believe that writer does not have enough proof to back-up the non-cited statements made through the paragraphs.
6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak). The organization is satisfactory because it does not have subheadings. The paper could have been broken out into subheadings to better guide readers.
7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) The mechanics of this paper is satisfactory for there were not any major issues with the punctuation or spelling/grammar. There are a few places where a comma was placed where it should not be.
8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explaing why? As an overall rating, this paper is a satisfactory piece of work. Looking at the all aspects, this paper seems like it was a rush job and did not have the time to complete the overall explanation of the topic. It summarizes a number of the points and does not go into an explanation of any of the references provided.