Final Ticket

[DavidVasilev1]

Team DEA - David, Ethan, Alex

Points	Runtime	Plan	Github	Analytics
0.88	Frontend	Project Plan	Frontend Backend	Frontend Backend

Name	Team+Indi+Teacher	Runtime	Issues	Key Commits	Analytics
David	0.88+0.88+? = 1.76	Insertion Sort Bubble Sort Bogo Sort Heap Sort	Issues	Implementing Insertion Implementing Other Sorts	Profile Frontend Backend
Alex	0.88+0.88 + ? = 1.76	Merge Sort Quick Sort	Issues	Implementing MergeSort Precedent QuickSort Implementation Asynch function in frontend	Profile Frontend Backend
Ethan	0.89+0.88 + ? = 1.77	Fibonacci Selection Sort	Issues	First Implementation of Fibonacci Selection Sort Implementation	Profile Frontend Backend

Name	Videos
David	Link
Alex	Link
Ethan	Link

[vardaansinha]

Team Review "Scrum Master Vardaan Sinha" grading "Scrum Master Alex Lu"

• [x] The team should have a Web Page(s) that teach/explain: Fibonacci, Algorithm, etc.: 0.9
• [x] The team should have a Web Page(s) that teach/explain: Sorting, Timing, Compares Swaps, etc.: 0.9

Team Review ticket containing key Team and individual contributions

• [x] Growth/Accomplishments in work is according to historical Team Plan, or they show revisions to plan according to work: 0.9
• [x] Short falls/Improvement that could be made in Work or Team Plan, team highlights next steps or improvements that could be made: 0.8
• [x] Showing key accomplishments according to requirement in Java Backend such as API, Abstract Class(es), Inheritance, Polymorphic behavior, Sorting Algorithms, etc. In Sorting, there should NOT be static classes or static methods.: 0.9
• [x] Showing key user interaction and learning(s). For instance how you visualized Sorting Algorithm: Bubble, Insertion, Selection, Merge... how you captured Big O, analytical data, usage of Data Structures... And/or, how you provided response and Feedback to user on their success in learning or experiencing your interface.: 0.9

AVERAGE: 0.88

FREEFORM COMMENT: This was incredibly well-thought out as a project. Everything was incredibly visually appealing, the features were functional, and the group showed an amazing depth of understanding on Fibonacci algorithms and sorting algorithms.

[VishnuAravind12]

Individual Review Vishnu grading David

• [x] Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom. (0.9)

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• [x] Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute (0.9)
• [x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives (0.9)
• [x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions (0.9)
• [x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks (0.8)

(0.9*4+0.8)/5 = 0.88

Freeform comment.
Provide positivies and growth summary.
Justify or comment on final score.
Be sure to provide extra details on anything below 0.7 average or above 0.8.

There were the extra sorts of the heap sort and the bogo sort, which shows mastery of the concepts. It shows that David has been doing a lot in Java. The styling on the frontend was done well, with informational sections on each sort. The visualizations with the animation were really cool to behold as well. There could have been more direct comparison of sorts. But the overall execution of positives greatly overwhelms the negatives.

[vardaansinha]

Individual Review "Vardaan Sinha" grading "Alex Lu"

• [x] Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom.: 0.9

By showing his commits and commit frequency throughout both the frontend and backend, Alex displayed his key participation in ideas and a clear model student in the classroom.

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• [x] Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute: 0.9

The video was clean, edited, within the timeframe and showed his feature with key code explanations of the demo. Great video.

• [x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives: 0.8

Alex's issues were incredibly detailed, went through potential challenges

• [x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions: 0.9

Showed key commits, showed how those commits contributed to the project functionality

• [x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks: 0.9

Graph of commits showed consistent contributions, easy to see that Alex made a big impact.

AVERAGE: 0.88 = ((0.9 * 4 ) + 0.8)/(5)

FREEFORM COMMENT: Alex truly showed how important he was to the team. His commits were consistent and plentiful, and he shows a complete mastery of Java. He knows exactly what he is doing and all of the features he manned at a clear purpose. The visualizations were splendid and fully functional and supplemented even my own learning on each of the algorithm types, and the fact that everything was perfectly working was the most important part.

[raunak2007]

Individual Review "Raunak Mondal" grading "Ethan Zhao"

• [x] Individual should show that they were key contributor and example to team. This includes their participation in ideas, plans, creating individual issues, providing code commits to project, crossover grading participation, being on task and positive example in the classroom. Individual was instrumental in showing their key role in learning and displaying the different algorithms used in their sorting mechanisms

Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)

• [x] Video, includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute 0.9: Video shows a high-quality demonstration and while concise, is useful to explain and show major contributions to the project
• [x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives 0.9: Issues show the major plans and progress that the team did to learn and improvise during the project
• [x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions 0.95: The commits that were presented during live review summarize the key contributions to the project and were useful in guiding me through the work done in the project

• [x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks: 0.8: While there were a variety of commits made, most of the commits were mostly made in the last few weeks/days of the project

  Per check.
  0.55 not attempted/no check 0.7 attempted, incomplete, but some runtime 0.8 mastery and runtime 0.9 above and beyond.

FREEFORM COMMENT: Showed improvement and learning in relation to his part of the project. Also showed a growth mindset in regards to learning code and displaying it. Except for few minor details, everything else looks almost perfect. The dynamic visualizations of the code were also an aspect of his project that went above and extra. 0.89 overall, only improvements are to fix minor problems with displaying sorts.

Average: ((0.9 * 3 )+ 0.95 + 0.8)/(5)=0.89