======================================
NAACL-2001 Review Form
======================================
Reviewer name: 
Paper ID:
;;;===================================
Brief one-sentence summary of the paper:

======================================
Comments to authors:












======================================
Overall evaluation

Reject or Accept (1-5): ___
(1 = reject, 2 = lean to reject, 3 = undecided, 4 = lean to accept, 5 = accept)

Is the topic of the paper appropriate for this conference?
Appropriate (1-5): ___
(1 = inappropriate, 5 = appropriate)

Is the paper clearly written? Does it motivate the research?
Clarity (1-5): ___
(1 = very unclear, 5 = clear)

Are the results significant and novel?
Significance (1-5): ___
(1 = not significant, 5 = highly significant)

Does the paper cite and discuss relevant prior work well?
References (1-5): ___
(1 = poor references, 5 = full references)

Are the results technically correct?
Correctness (1-5): ___
(1 = incorrect, 5 = correct)
;;;===================================
Confidential to Senior Program Committee and Program Chair
Appropriateness as reviewer of this paper (1-5): ___
(1 = inappropriate, 5 = appropriate)

Confidential comments:

======================================