Name of the Reviewer: Ben Maxfield, member of team “Jake’s Friends”
Author’s Name: Jake Moh, member of team “Jake’s Friends”
Date: February 5th, 2022
Subject: Peer Review of “The Definitions of Object Oriented Programming”
Jake,
Thank you for providing the definitions for “Object Oriented Programming” (OOP). The following notes will help to improve these definitions.
First Impressions
The document describes the term ‘object-oriented programming’ efficiently and concisely and covers the distinctive elements for a novice reader.
Organization
- Formatting is consistent and highly readable
- Headings follow a visual hierarchy
- Images are correctly labelled and well-sized
Language/Expression
- Tone of writing is excellent throughout
- There is some inconsistency in the “Analysis of Parts”
- The definition for Objects has a very approachable definition
- The other two definitions (Methods, Attributes), use more technical language
- A significant amount of terminology is again introduced in the “Compare & Contrast” section
Definitions
- Each section is thoughtfully assembled
- The choice, ordering, and selection of materials is excellent
- The “Analysis of Parts” and “Comparison and Contrast” sections introduce too many technical terms as a means of explaining the definition
- “Analysis of Parts” could focus more on real-world comparisons for each concept
- A visual explicitly included in this section would be very effective
- “Comparison and Contrast” could be paired down. The “Example”, “Definition”, and “Use” categories are the only essential ones; the remaining categories are only valuable comparison to those who are already familiar with OOP.
Visuals
- Both visuals are readable and highly effective at clarifying previously-defined attributes of the definition
- Visuals are correctly labelled
- The visuals would be significantly more effective if they were included earlier in the post
Grammar/Typos
- “When starting the next big project, my manager suggested that we should use a programming language…”
- Rewrite: “My manager suggested that we should use a programming language that supports OOP for the next big project…”
Concluding Comments
The post is straightforward, accurate, and thorough in describing all of the important properties. With the following adjustments, it will be an excellent resource.
- A combination of your tone, formatting, and included media all contribute to a visibly “high-quality” post
- The choices you made in expanding the definition were thoughtful, and perfectly suited to describe OOP
- The language may be hard to follow for less technical readers at certain points
- The included visuals would be better-placed earlier in the post
If you have any questions about the points I’ve raised, feel free to reach out – I will do my best to clarify things.
Thoroughly enjoyed your post, great work!
Leave a Reply