1. Rating
   Rate the paper in the following categories (For each category,
   choose a one numeric rating)

   Overall grade (overall, how do you rate this summary paper?)
      3: Good

   Language (how fluent is the language, did you understand what this 
   paper is saying?)
      3: Good

   Technical quality
      4: Contents are mostly correct. Some improvements suggested below.
      
   Editorial quality
      3: Understandable with some effort, several improvements suggested
         below

   Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
      3: I have good or expert level knowledge of this topic


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.

There are some (mostly editorial) points in the paper that could be improved.
Additionally, there are also several aspects of the presentation of the paper,
which should be improved.

   - Remark about style: Though this is a highly subjective remark,
     one could consider choosing a less colourful style at some parts of
     the text. One example, which would probably disturb some readers used to
     a less emotional, style of articles: page 1, "In the missions
     which have to look into a big region, the sensor network is able to
     extend tentacles to the wild open environments, ...''
   - Last paragraph page one: Obviously there is a section label missing,
     I assume the section has been removed and the outline was not updated.
     That should definitely be fixed.
   - Some grammar mistakes, very common are missing "s" when the reader is
     told about general concepts, e.g.: Page one, first paragraph:
     "..is a primary issue during the design OF (missing) the (should be
     dropped) sensor networks(!) and applications(!)." Next sentence:
     "..in fixed networks(!), ..", etc.
   - Sometimes plural is used as singular and vice versa. E.g.: Page 2,
     end of first paragraph: "Solutions of this type is (should be are)
     well known as beacon less solution". End of Section 3: "..it claims
     50 valid samples is (should be are) sufficient to perform
     localisation.."
   - Section and subsection headings should be capitalised (coherently).
     In the paper, some section headings are capitalised, some are not.
   - Inconsistency: You write "beacon-based" with a - 'dash', but "beacon
     less" without in the same construction, e.g. "beacon less method".
   - The figures in the paper should have been commented each using a sentence
     or two, describing the main ideas. Only giving the figures without explanation
     is not very informative. In fact, it leaves the work of understanding them to
     the reader, which slows down the speed of reading (and also frustrates the reader).
   - Two typos in references (which I found, there might be more):
     1. ``Attack-resistant location estimation in sensor networks'' by Liu, D. and
     Ning, P. and Du, W.K. There is a ``s'' missing in the title and there is also
     a co-author missing. References should always contain the names of all authors.
     2. ``Localized algorithms in wireless ad-hoc networks: location discovery and sensor
     exposure.'' Again, ``s'' in networks is missing, also one of the authors.