To: Duffy Du, ENGL 301 Student, Team Commas
From: Jackson Kuan, ENGL 301 Student, Team Commas
Date: Feb 04, 2022
Subject: Peer Review of 3 Definitions – Linked List
After reviewing your first submission for the 3 definitions assignment, I found the work to be excellent. The way the content is structured and organized makes the entire story captivating and easy to follow. For both the parenthetical and sentence definitions, the message is conveyed effectively. The use of visuals makes it easier for someone with minimal knowledge on computer science to understand. Below are a few suggestions that aim to strengthen the 3 definitions.
Definition Under Review: Linked List
First Impressions:
- The language used to convey a complex term for a non-technical audience is done effectively. There is an appropriate amount of visuals which complements the definitions and aids in defining a complex term for those with minimal knowledge on computer science.
- One area of improvement is the formatting of the assignment. The writing is strong, but the images could be improved by adding a legend detailing each component and the citations do not follow APA formatting.
Purpose/Definition:
- The parenthetical and sentence definitions are short, simple, and straight to the point.
- One thing to consider for the parenthetical definition is to keep the definition solely on the term “linked list”. By explaining it as a tool that is better than an array, it feels similar to a ‘compare and contrast’, which is in the expanded definition. This takes away from the definition of a “linked list”, and makes the reader curious as to what an array is.
Audience:
- The explanation of a “linked list” is easy to understand with the use of visuals.
- In the analysis of parts section, the use of jargon makes it difficult to understand completely.
- For example, in the ‘compare and contrast’ paragraph, the term ‘contiguous memory address’ is foreign and requires an explanation. The use of parenthetical definitions for jargon would be beneficial for the reader.
Formatting:
- The explanations are easy to understand, but are repetitive to some extent.
- Regarding the operating principle definitions of search, insertion, and deletion, they all begin with “To”. This is a bit repetitive after multiple usages, therefore finding another way to express the same ideas will minimize the chances of the reading mixing up the definitions.
- For example, “To insert an element in the middle of a linked list…”, change to, “The insertion of an element in the middle of the linked list is done by…”.
Visuals:
- These images make a complex term easier to understand by being able to visualize the concept.
- One suggestion is to incorporate a legend to describe each element.
- For example, in figure 3, it would help the reader to help differentiate between a pointer and a flatheaded line.
- Furthermore, the two images of code are not labeled with a figure caption. To ensure consistency with the other images, a figure caption should be included.
Citations:
- The intext citations are well written, but the URL link is not required.
- The intext citations should include the author, website, or title when appropriate, and the year of publication.
Summary:
Overall, the work is well done and well organized. As mentioned before, the visuals help explain the concept effectively. Listed below are suggestions for revisions that will strengthen the 3 definitions.
- Minimize the use of jargon, or include parenthetical definitions when appropriate
- Revise the formatting of intext citations to follow APA formatting
- Include figure captions for all visual aids to ensure consistency throughout the assignment
If there are any questions regarding the review and sugesstions, please do not hesitate to ask.
Leave a Reply