-------------------------------
 ACL Review Form
 -------------------------------

 Paper ID#: Title: Author:

 Please rate the paper on the six dimensions listed below, on a scale
 of 1 to 3, where 1 means "bad" and 3 means "good"; an answer of NA
 for not applicable is also allowable.  Then rate the paper overall
 where indicated on a scale of 1-10.  Please use integer values.
 The scales are deliberately different so that you can avoid the
 temptation of doing simple averaging to arrive at the final score.

 Then, please provide any comments you think appropriate to help the
 Program Committee in making their final decisions; and (this is
 especially important) please provide comments to assist the authors
 in improving the quality of their final paper.

 Please try to avoid saying anything in the comments to the author
 that assumes your recommendation regarding acceptance or rejection
 will be followed, since the final decision depends on other factors,
 and in particular the other reviews.

 If a reviewer should have a conflict of interest, please declare the
 conflict as soon as possible to your subcommittee chair.

 PLEASE SEND THIS FORM TO YOUR AREA CHAIR BY <DATE>.


 --------
 Appropriateness of Content: Does the paper fit in ACL?  Is it in an
 area in which you've seen papers presented at earlier ACL conferences,
 or is it in an area that hasn't surfaced before at an ACL conference
 but you think should be represented?  If so, why?

 Clarity of Presentation: Is it clear what was done?  Is it
 well-written and well-structured?  Does the English need cleaning up?
 Is it likely that any unclarity could be fixed with relatively little
 effort, or would the paper require more work than is likely to be
 carried out in the time available?

 Correctness: Does it appear to be flawed technically or
 methodologically?  Please say if you have not been able to check on
 this front.

 Implications: How important is the work?  Will it impact on a lot of
 researchers in the field, or is it of minor significance but still
 interesting?

 Originality: How novel is the approach?  Do the authors make clear
 where their paper sits with respect to the existing literature? If
 you don't know enough about the specific area the paper is in to assess
 this, please say.

 Innovativeness: Does this paper break new ground in topic, methodology,
 or content? How exciting and innovative is the research it describes?

 --------

 Overall score:
 9-10 (=3D It's so great, I'd fight to get this accepted)
 7-8  (=3D It's pretty good, so I'd like to see this accepted)
 5-6  (=3D Hmm ... I'm ambivalent about this one)
 3-4  (=3D Weak; I'd rather not see this accepted)
 1-2  (=3D Awful; I'd fight to have this rejected)