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

                    HLT-NAACL'03 Paper Review Information

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

     Edit your review below. Remember to click on the Save Edits button at
     the bottom of this page to save your changes.

                        Review for Paper XXX: Title

       Is this paper relevant to / appropriate for HLT-NAACL?

       1 = Definitely not
       2 = Probably not
       3 = Uncertain
       4 = Probably
       5 = Definitely

       Briefly summarize the main goals of the paper:

       Describe the importance and quality of the results,
       addressing the following concerns: Is it new and
       significant? Is it a useful and relevant problem? Do the
       authors sufficiently motivate the problem? Did you learn
       anything?

       Describe the quality of the presentation, addressing the
       following: Do the authors clearly describe what was done
       and/or how it was studied? Is the writing clear and concise?
       Do they provide the right level of detail? Do they use too
       much jargon? Do the figures support the text?

       Does the paper address the special themes of the conference
       (new approaches to and uses of unsupervised or
       semi-supervised techniques)?

       Yes
       No

       Does the paper combine two or more conference topics (e.g.,
       speech processing with IR, Machine Translation with Speech,
       QA with NLP, etc.)?

       Yes
       No

       Does the paper provide data, software, or source code that
       will be useful to other researchers in this area?

       1 = Provides no resources
       2 = Provides somewhat useful resources
       3 = Provides very useful resources

       Should the paper be accepted or rejected?

       1 = Definite reject
       2 = Likely reject
       3 = Could go either way
       4 = Likely accept
       5 = Definite accept

       Using the scale below, rate your expertise in the area
       addressed by the paper.

       1 = Not very confident, really just a guess
       2 = Rather unconfident, but I know a bit
       3 = Moderately confident, I know as much as most
       4 = Pretty confident, I know this area well
       5 = Extremely confident, I consider myself an expert in this
       area

       Would you recommend that the author revise and resubmit this
       paper as a short paper if it is not accepted?

       Yes
       No

       Any other comments for the author:

       Comments or information for the program committee only:

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