Reviewer's name: {Your name}, {your CS login@cs.wisc.edu}

Title: {Title of paper being reviewed}

Authors: {Authors of paper}

Ratings

Evaluation of work and contribution

{your rating}

5=Excellent work and a major contribution
4=Good solid work of some importance
3=Solid work but marginal contribution
2=Marginal work and very minor contribution
1=Very questionable work and contribution

Originality, Novelty

{your rating}

5=Trailblazing
4=A pioneering piece of work
3=One step ahead of the pack
2=YAPA(yet another paper about...)
1=It's been said many times before

Readability and organization

{your rating}

5=Very good
4=Basically well written
3=Readable
2=Needs considerable work
1=Unacceptably bad

Overall recommendation

{your rating}

5=Definitely accept (very high quality)
4=Accept (good quality)
3=Accept if room (marginal quality)
2=Likely reject (low quality)
1=Definitely reject (has no merit)

Summary

{One or two paragraphs in your own words summarizing the most important point(s) in the paper, without your opinion on the validity of those points.}

Comments

{This is the body of your review. Start with a paragraph that will briefly summarize your opinion of the paper. Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.}

Headings

{Before each point about the paper, insert a level 3 heading so the reader of your review can go straight to any particular topic. Illustrate your points with examples. AVOID GENERALITIES. Your points might relate to:}

Importance and correctness of results presented
Validity of theoretical or experimental methodology
- measurements
- simulation
- theorems
- proofs
Clarity of presentation, ease of understanding concepts
Usefulness and clarity of figures, tables, graphs
Ways you think the paper could be improved

Future Work

Suggestions for future work:

{Use bullets to suggest a few items for future investigation, questions raised, or wider implications of the results}