++++++++START OF REVIEW FORM: DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE++++++++ ------------------- ACL 2002 Review Form ------------------- Paper ID#: Title: Please rate the paper on the 8 dimensions listed below, according to the proposed scale running from 1 to 5, where 1 means "poor" and 5 means "excellent". Please use only the listed numbers. Your comments on the paper should be reported in the section for the Program Committee and in the section for the Authors. Please provide any comments you think appropriate to help the Program Committee in making their final decisions; and, especially important, please provide comments to assist the authors in improving the quality of their final paper. Please try to avoid saying anything in the comments to the author that assumes your recommendation regarding acceptance or rejection will be followed, since the final decision depends on other factors, and in particular the other reviews. Please return the ENTIRE review form: the "Do not delete" lines are there to make it possible to semi-automate the handling of the reviews. PLEASE SEND THIS FORM TO YOUR AREA SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR BY March 12, 2002. -------- Appropriateness: Does the paper fit in ACL-02 5: Definitely 4: Probably 3: Uncertain 2: Probably not 1: Certainly not My vote: Correctness: Does the paper appear to be flawed technically and/or methodologically? 5: Impeccable 4: The paper is OK 3: Only trivial flaws 2: Minor flaws that must be corrected 1: Major flaws that make the paper unsound/inconsistent My vote: (Optional): Did you (thoroughly,quickly,not) check the technical details? (choose one) Implications: How important is the work? 5: Will change the future 4: People will read and cite this paper 3: Restricted interest 2: Not of compelling interest 1: Will have no impact on the field My vote: Originality: How novel is the approach? 5: A radically new approach 4: An innovative use 3: A new application of well known techniques 2: Yet another application of well worn techniques 1: Entirely derivative My vote: Empirical Grounding: Does this paper contain information about evaluation? 5: Excellent evaluation 4: Good evaluation 3: Some evaluation 2: Evaluation is weak 1: Should have contained some evaluation, but it didn't; or it did but the evaluation was bogus N/A: Does not apply My vote: Clarity: Is it clear what was done? 5: Presentation is very clear 4: Difficult, but understandable 3: Some parts were not clear to me 2: Most of the paper is unclear 1: Presentation is very confusing My vote: References: Is the bibliography relevant and exhaustive? 5: Thorough 4: Pretty good, but a few missing 3: Some citations, but some missing 2: Scrappy citations; a lot missing 1: Virtually no relevant references cited My vote: Out or In: Should the paper be rejected or accepted? 5: I would fight to have this paper accepted 4: I would like this paper accepted 3: I am undecided 2: I would like this paper rejected 1: I would fight to have this paper rejected My vote: Best Paper: Should the paper be considered for the Best Paper Award (yes/no)? My vote: Please rate your confidence in the domain of this paper (1 = non-expert; 5 = expert). Confidence in domain: --------END OF EVALUATION SECTION: DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE-------- ++++++++START OF COMMENTS TO COMMITTEE: DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE++++++++ Comments to the Program Committee: Paper ID#: [Insert comments to replace this line.] --------END OF COMMENTS TO COMMITTEE: DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE-------- ++++++++START OF COMMENTS TO AUTHOR: DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE++++++++ Comments to the Author: Paper ID#: [Insert comments to replace this line.] --------END OF REVIEW FORM: DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE--------