Answer each question below (in order). Include explanations for your answers, and where appropriate, suggest improvements if possible.
(1) Your name?
(2) Name of author?
(4) LaTeX: Did they use correctly the LaTeX template with the macros turned on?
(5) References: Do they have enough references, and do the citations include sufficient information (as per the instructions)?
(7) Topic sentences: Does each topic sentence clearly express the point of the paragraph? (In other words, does the body of the paragraph serve primarily to clarify or support the message in the topic sentence?)
(8) Segues: Does each topic sentence transition smoothly from the previous one (e.g., by using a segue), such that they flow together well?
(10) Story flow: Assuming that a paper is really just a series of ideas that flow together to tell a story, is there a topic sentence for each key idea needed for the story to hold together and makes sense? (In other words, are any key ideas missing or buried in the middle of paragraphs?)
(11) Contribution: Does the author’s approach have a good chance of making a significant contribution to its area of study? (In other words, is there a good chance the work will generate important new knowledge?)
(12) Threats: Any important threats to the validity of the work that the author fails to discuss or that is particularly worrisome (even if discussed)?
(13) Approach: Are all the relevant details about the author’s approach (i.e., tool and/or empirical methods) described?
(14) Related work: Is the author’s work well situated with respect to the relevant literature? (In other words, is it always made clear how the author’s work relates or compares to works from the literature?)
(15) Synthesis: Does the coverage of the related work display effective synthesis? (In other words, is the related work structured based on key themes and concepts, and not based on a “laundry list” of individual works?)