\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\hypersetup{%
	pdfauthor={Mart Lubbers},
	pdfsubject={Short review},
	pdfcreator={Mart Lubbers},
	pdfproducer={Mart Lubbers},
	hidelinks
}

\author{Mart Lubbers (s4109503)}
\title{Batcher's Odd-Even Merging Network Revealed}
\date{2016{--}06{-}01}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
This \emph{Functional Pearl} shows that using tools from functional programming
the underlying semantics and meaning of the classic \emph{Batcher's Merging
Network} can be revealed very easily without the use of ample indexing.

%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
Step by step the author guides the reader through theory to finally reach the
real implementation of the peculiar sorting network. When the final
implementation is presented properties can be proven very easily.

\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
The final implementation is very elegant and short. The reader is prepared very
thoroughly before it reaches the real implementation. Moreover the pearl is
just about the right size for one. The number of pages is a bit more then usual
but there are a lot of diagrams that stretch the pagenumber.

%Weaknesses
However it heavily depends on so called \emph{clean} functions which are not
very trivial at first. Also the author takes a lot of detours to get to the
solution. While some of the detours are necessary a lot of them could be
formulated somewhat shorter to not confuse the reader.

\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
I would accept the paper under the condition that the author takes a good look
at the detours and then decides whether they can be formulated more succinct or
maybe even omitted.

%Comments on quality of writing
The quality of writing is very good. The paper is well structured besides the
detours. There are a lot of fancy operators used which makes the code not
usable without a small modification.

\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
\begin{itemize}
	\item There are too many detours in the paper.
	\item The pearl is not really a general solution but a specific one for a
		specific problem.
\end{itemize}

\end{document}
