1. Rating
   Rate the paper in the following categories (For each category,
   choose a one numeric rating)
 
  Technical quality
    5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors.
    4: Contents are mostly correct. Some improvements suggested below.
    3: Some errors which can be easily corrected, as described below.
    2: Several errors but most are minor errors
    1: Several/major errors
    
  Originality
    5: New results of publishable quality and good analysis of current state
    4: Contains some new ideas, but can be developed as described
       below; good analysis of current state
    3: No significantly new ideas, but good analysis of current state
    2: Good survey of current state; no new ideas
    1: Survey of current state has gaps
  
  Editorial quality
    5: Clear, understandable and easy to read
    4: Mostly understandable, some improvements identified below
    3: Understandable with some effort, several improvements suggested
       below
    2: Hard to understand; several improvements suggested below
    1: Very hard to understand

  Overall grade (overall, how do you rate this paper?)
    5: Excellent
    4: Very good
    3: Good
    2: Satisfactory
    1: Poor
  
  Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
    3: I have good or expert level knowledge of this topic
    2: I have some general knowledge of this subject
    1: This is a completely new subject to me; I made educated guesses


2. Detailed comments

   Provide detailed written comments on the paper.  In general, your
   main aim as a reviewer is to help improve the paper. Be as specific
   as you can when you point out errors or problems. Suggest concrete
   improvements whenever possible.

   Your review should cover the following three aspects.  Use the
   suggested guidelines in composing your review for each aspect.

  2a. Technical quality
      Give a one paragraph summary of the paper.
      Explain what are the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.  In the
       case of weaknesses suggest how they can be corrected.
      Point out any errors, and suggest how they can be corrected.
      Point out any new ideas in the paper that can be improved or further
       developed.  Suggest how.
      Does the paper provide a good survey of the state of the art?
      Point out any important missing references.

  2b. Originality
      Does the paper claim new ideas?  How novel are they?
      How well does the paper analyze and explain the state of the art?

  2c. Editorial quality

      Is the paper easy to read and understand?
      Does the abstract faithfully describe the contents of the paper?
      Does the Introduction section clearly spell out the problem
       addressed and the scope?

      Can you suggest improvements in organization, and presentation that
       would improve readability and understandability?


Good references:

This page has some helpful tips of peer-reviewing of student papers:
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/taresources/PR2.PDF

This paper is a classic: A Guide for New Referees in Theoretical
Computer Science.  You can use this when you do actual reviews of
conference/journal papers.
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/parberry89guide.html