They give a description of what gravity waves are, a brief history of gravity waves, and a brief note as to why attempts to detect them are important. It contains, however, too much information in too little space.
If this were your paper, I'd recommend either expanding the size of the introduction, or, even better, tightening the focus and leaving out some information.
The sentence "As in any wave-like signal, a gravitational wave has a characteristic frequency and amplitude" conveys little information.
Worse, it interrupts the train of thought --- the sentences before and after really need to go together. If a wave "chirps," it can't be described by a single frequency or amplitude.
One of the things I dislike about this paper is the way in which the figures are presented and referenced.
Each figure, table, etc., should be labeled with a number and a caption, i.e., "FIG. Artists depiction of mass transfer between two gravitational wells.A good one or two sentence thesis statement is needed before they end their introduction. "In this paper we will describe five types of gravitational wave sources: orbiting masses, coalescence, mass transfer, ..., as well as several proposed methods of gravity wave detection."Notice how the descriptions of the various means of generating gravity waves are presented in a nice orderly way. This part of the paper flows very well --- you learn a lot of information without expending much time or effort to read or understand it.Furthermore, when you quote a recognized expert, it adds a certain assurance that what you are describing is not nonsense. It is related to what they are discussing, but is long and goes into more detail than the rest of their discussion.It is nothing too impressive, and I think that they could have paraphrased it and said it better!Also notice that each new concept has at least one reference --- letting us know where they learned about it.Unless the idea you are discussing is your own original research, you should reference the source where you obtained the information.gravwaves2This is a really good paper, so now lets trash it.Seriously, I though it would be helpful for you if you could see a critique of this paper so that you could more easily see some of the things that were done right and that were done wrong. It is well organized, focused, and well polished (i.e., good grammar, good spelling, transitions between different discussions, etc.).These are some of the better papers that have been handed in in past semesters.Note, however, that these papers are far from perfect.