\documentclass[12pt]{scrartcl}

\usepackage[a4paper,left=3.0cm,right=2.5cm,top=3.0cm,bottom=2.5cm,headheight=15pt,headsep=1.5cm,footskip=1cm]{geometry}


%---- Sonderzeichen-------%
\usepackage {ngerman}


%---- Codierung----%
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}	% for Unix and Windows
%\usepackage[applemac]{inputenc}	% for MAC

\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}


%----- Mathematischer Zeichenvorrat---%
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}

\usepackage{enumerate}

%----- Mehrseitige Tabellen ----%
\usepackage{longtable}

% fuer die aktuelle Zeit
\usepackage{scrtime}


\usepackage[colorlinks=true, pdfstartview=FitV, linkcolor=black,
citecolor=black, urlcolor=black]{hyperref}


\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\lhead{\nouppercase{\leftmark}} \chead{} \rhead{\thepage}
\fancyfoot {}


\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\newcommand{\markup}[1]{\uline{#1}}

\begin{document}



\section*{Review form\footnote{Please complete all fields marked with "`[TODO]"'.}\footnote{Template by Jun.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. Steffen Becker, Universität Paderborn}}
\hrule
\ \\

\begin{center}
\textbf{ProSeminar: Compilerbau (SoSe2018)}

Stefan Kögel, Michael Stegmaier, Raffaela Groner\\
Institute of Software Engineering and Programming Languages, Ulm University
\end{center}



\subsection*{Basic Information}

\paragraph{Name of reviewer:} [TODO]

\paragraph{Title of the reviewed article:} [TODO]

\paragraph{Name of the reviewed article's author:} [TODO]

\paragraph{Date:} [TODO]



\subsection*{Summary}
[TODO: Summarize the article in four to five sentences]



\subsection*{Classification}
Please judge the paper using the following evaluation levels. Enter the results in the table. The levels represent typical judgements of an international conference.
1 = strong accept and I would argue for it; 2 = weak accept; 3 = weak reject; 4 = strong reject and I would argue for it.

In order to come to a unified judgement, we provide a set of guiding questions, which you should consider when evaluating the paper. Additionally, consider the seminar guidelines presented to you in the beginning. Justify your judgements using the provided text areas.

\begin{longtable}{|p{12cm}|p{2.5cm}|}	
		\hline
			\textbf{Criteria} & \textbf{Evaluation (number 1-4)} \\
		\hline
		\hline
		\endhead
			\textbf{Abstract}		
						
				Is the abstract's wording suited? Does it use the right abstraction level?
			
				Does the abstract clearly illustrate what the reader can expect from the article?
				
				Is the abstract self-contained (i.e. understandable without considering the remainder of the article)?

			& [TODO] \ \\
		\hline
			\textbf{Formal Aspects}	
				
				Is the document's length and formatting according to the provided guidelines?
				
				Is the spelling and grammar appropriate?
				%Are there too many spelling or grammar mistakes?
			& [TODO] \ \\
		\hline	
			\textbf{Outline}		
			
				Is the presented work well motivated?
				
				Does the introduction explain the paper's structure?
				
				Are the section title's on the right abstraction level and do they use appropriate wording?
				
				Are all terms explained before their use?
								
				Are the headings consistent with their section's contents?
			& [TODO] \ \\
		\hline	
			\textbf{Style and Readability}	
			
				Does the article efficiently use technical terms, formulas, pseudo-code, figures, or tables without being too narrative, not scientific or exaggerated scientific?

				Is the line of argumentation clear and understandable?
				
				%Is the text too narrative, not scientific or exaggerated scientific?
				
				Is there no pseudo-scientific style used in the thesis?
				%Does the article suffer from a pseudo-scientific style?

				Are the sentences and sections of appropriate length?
			& [TODO] \ \\			
		\hline	
			\textbf{Use of References}
			
				Are all necessary references given at the right places?
				
				Are all references relevant for the article's topic?
				
				Are all literal citations marked as such?
				
				%Is related work properly handled and are the main differences to the presented approach made clear?
			& [TODO] \ \\				
		\hline		
			\textbf{Bibliography}
			
				Are all entries in the bibliography complete and correct?
				
				%Do you know any references the article should have had but doesn't?
								
				Are all critical statements backed up by references?
		  & [TODO] \ \\				
		\hline
			\textbf{Level of Detail}
			
				Is the presentation of the technical concepts appropriate for  
				target readers? Are the explanations comprehensible?
				
				Is there a good balance between low-level technical details and high-level concepts? (Reminder: Most topics requested a survey or summary of a certain topic or area)
				
				Is the level of detail suited for an article of the given length?
			& [TODO] \ \\				
		\hline
			\textbf{Completeness}
			
				Is the text complete?
			& [TODO] \ \\	
		\hline
			\textbf{Conclusions}
			
				Is there an appropriate summary of the article's contents?
								
				Is there a critical, subjective reflection of the article's contents?
			& [TODO] \ \\				
		\hline
			\textbf{Overall Impression}
			& [TODO] \ \\				
		\hline		
		
\end{longtable}



\subsection*{Explanations}
Thoroughly \textbf{justify your judgements} in this section (both: positive and negative aspects). Provide constructive feedback on how to improve the article.

\paragraph{Language use and style:} [TODO]

\paragraph{Bibliography (missing or superfluous references):} [TODO]

\paragraph{Level of Detail:} [TODO]

\paragraph{Strong aspects of the article:} [TODO]

\paragraph{Weak aspects of the article:} [TODO]



\subsection*{Miscellaneous}
Comments not fitting into any other category.

\paragraph{Comments:} [TODO]

\end{document}

