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?)
      5: Excellent
      4: Very good
      3: Good
      2: Satisfactory
      1: Poor

   Language (how fluent is the language, did you understand what this 
   paper is saying?)
      5: Excellent
      4: Very good
      3: Good
      2: Satisfactory
      1: Poor

   Technical quality
      5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors. It corresponds
         information on the source material. 
      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

   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

   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.