To: Jeemin Kim

From: Samantha Krieg

Date: 2022/06/10

Peer Review/ Term: Object-oriented Programming

I have reviewed the first draft of your definitions of object-oriented programing. Please review the following suggestions to help you improve the future iterations of this document.

First Impressions:

  • The purpose of the document was communicated effectively, and the concept introduced was understood immediately.
  • There was adequate information given for the definition, however, more background information about its history and operating principle would be interesting.
  • The parenthetical, sentence and expanded definitions provide enough context and information for non-technical readers with no background on the subject to have a high-level overview.
  • After reading the definitions the first time I had the following questions in mind:
    • Is this type of programming commonly used?
      • If so, what are some applications?
      • If not, why?
    • How was this programming style developed?
    • How do the objects communicate with each other?

Organization:

  • The organization of the content was excellent, and the forecasting statements contributed to the clarity of the definitions.
  • The definitions were well structured, and each section performed its intended task.
  • The figures and subheadings were formatted well.

Introduction:

  • The introduction clearly stated the purpose of the document.
  • Consider elaborating on the intended audience and objective.

Parenthetical Definition:

  • The parenthetical definition fits well within the sentence.
  • The source cited is not appropriate and is missing a date, see the Works Cited section for more information.

Sentence Definition:

  • The concept is well explained; however, there is more than one sentence, and it could be edited to be more concise.
    • See the Grammar and Spelling subsection for more information.
  • The source cited is missing a date, see the Works Cited section for more information.

Expanded Definition:

  • The various methods of expression used in this section (comparison and contrast, required conditions, example and visual) strengthened the definition.
  • The expanded definition begins abruptly with the comparison, consider adding a history or etymology section to provide more background information.
  • Some technical terms should be edited or removed.
    • See the Grammar and Spelling subsection for more information.
  • The comparison section of the expanded definition is the most effective part.
    • It helped me better understand how this programming technique is used and its importance.

Visuals:

  • The visual effectively supports the information given in the expanded definition.

Grammar and Spelling:

  • No spelling mistakes are made.
  • Jargon and technical terms are used in the comparison and example of the expanded definition, including:
    • Reusable or mutable code
    • Self-sustainable programming paradigm
    • Instance
    • Property vales
  • Consider re-writing the sentence definition to make it more concise and only one sentence.

Works Cited:

  • Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for academic work.
  • Please ensure that all in-text citations have dates.
    • If there is no date available, use n.d.

Concluding Comments:

Overall, I thought that all three of your definition styles were clear and accessible. I had a positive initial impression of the definitions, and I am impressed with your hard work. If I were your supervisor or your editor, I would ask for small revisions to the document before approval, including:

  • Consider elaborating on the intended audience and objective in the introduction.
  • Consider re-writing the sentence definition to make it more concise and only one sentence.
  • The expanded definition begins abruptly with the comparison, consider adding a history or etymology section to provide more background information.
  • In my opinion, this is the most in need of improvement.
  • Remove the technical terms from the comparison and example in the expanded definition or add parenthetical definitions to explain them.
  • Wikipedia is not an appropriate source for academic work.
  • Please ensure that all in-text citations have dates.

Thank you and please do not hesitate if you have any questions.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl30198a2022s12/2022/06/08/301-definitions-jeemin-kim/