4641/7641 PRESENTATION REVIEW FORM -- COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR(S)

Note: You must justify your responses.  Imagine a "Why or why not?"
after each question.

PAPER CODE:   XXXX
PAPER TITLE:  XXXX XXXX XXXX


SUMMARY
   - What was the main result of the talk?  Was it conveyed early on? 
   - Are the result and its presentation convincing? Why or why not?


TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE
   - Did the talk effectively convey the technical aspects of the work?
     In other words, did the talk leave the audience with a clear idea
     of the details involved in the research (techniques, algorithms,
     experimental setup, etc.).
   - Did the presentation situate the research among appropriate past
     work? 
   

CHANGES SINCE THE FINAL PAPERS
   - Did the author(s) address the criticisms brought up by the reviewers?
     "Address" may mean fixing a problem or more clearly justifying a
     certain approach.  Keep in mind the limited time between the
     final paper submission and the final package submission...certain
     changes may not have been feasible.


CLARITY
   - Was the problem clearly explained and motivated?
   - Was the approach clearly explained and motivated?
   - Overall, was the talk clear?  Were the main points conveyed well?


OTHER COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR(S):

<your comments here>



COMMENTS TO THE SPC AND PROGRAM CHAIRS:


SHOULD THIS PAPER BE NOMINATED AS AN OUTSTANDING TALK? ______


WHY OR WHY NOT?