Each critique should be no more than one page long. Use single-spacing. Less than a page is abolutely OK. The purpose of a critique is not to summarize the paper; rather you should choose a couple of points about the work that you found interesting and talk about them in more depth. Examples of questions that you might address are:

• What is one of the strengths of the method proposed in the paper? How might it be used to solve a related problem? Examples are always good.
• What is one of the limitations the paper's approach? Sketch out one or more possible solutions.
• Is the evaluation fair? Does it achieve it support the stated goals of the paper? If not, what would you have done instead to strengthen the evaluation?
• Does the method described seem mature enough to use in real applications? Why or why not? What applications seem particularly amenable to this approach?
• What good ideas does the problem formulation, the solution, the approach or the research method contain that could be applied elsewhere?
• What would be good follow-on projects and why? Sketch out how these might proceed.
• Are the paper's underlying assumptions valid? If not, explain why. How might you adapt the approach presented in the paper to fit your new assumptions.
• Did the paper provide a clear enough and detailed enough description of the proposed methods for you to be able to implement them? If not, where is additional clarification or detail needed?

Your critique should be typed (single space) and should list the title of the paper and its authors at the top, along with your name and netid.

Avoid unsupported value judgments, like ``I liked...'' or ``I disagreed with...'' If you make judgments of this sort, explain why you liked or disagreed with the point you describe.

Be sure to distinguish comments about the writing of the paper from comment about the technical content of the work.