INSTRUCTIONS:

The reviewing is a single-blind process which means that you know the author of the paper but not the other way around.  The grade of the
reviewed paper will not be influenced by your review. Rather, we
will assess the quality of your review. You should give a polite,
but honest and constructive feedback with appropriate scores (as
positive or as negative as the paper deserves). Please write clear
reviews that are meaningful to the authors. Speak in particulars,
not in generalities. Never characterize the authors.

You can read the notes given to SIGGRAPH reviewers at:
http://www.siggraph.org/s2008/submissions/juried/papers/review_writing.php

Please,replace " ... " between the appropriate tags with your text.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** IMPORTANT ****
Please note that *all* answers to *all* questions (except the
confidential comments question and of course reviewer
identification) will be forwarded to the authors.
It is thus important to word your responses appropriately.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE OF THE PAPER:

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAPER ONLINE ID:

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLASSIFICATION:

Please classify the paper selecting one of the choices below
R - Research paper (presents innovative research results);
P - Practice and experience (variants, applications, case studies);
S - State-of-the-art report (reviews of recent advances);

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Please summarize the paper in 1 - 2 paragraphs.

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLARITY OF PRESENTATION:
Is the paper adequately written (content, structure, English)?

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
TECHNICAL SOUNDNESS:
Are technical details explained correctly and adequately ?

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLETENESS OF REFERENCES:
(yes/no)

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
IF NOT PLEASE LIST MISSING REFERENCES:

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

Please rate the submission using this scale:

0 - This is a poor paper.
1 - This is an average paper.
2 - This is a nice paper.
3 - This is an excellent paper

...

EXPLANATION
Explain your grading in several sentences:

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENCE IN THE EVALUATION:

Using this scale

1 - I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider.
2 - I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert.
3 - I am an expert on the subject area of this paper.

rate your degree of confidence in your evaluation.

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
MINOR OR MAJOR REVISIONS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED?

1 - NO REVISION
2 - MINOR
3 - MAJOR

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHORS:
Please provide additional comments to the authors (e.g., typos or spelling erros you have discovered), as well as other comments that could improve the paper.

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------