Open DavidL0914 opened 8 months ago
Individual Review Hanlun grading Kayden
Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)
[x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks
Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.
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.
Individual Review Hanlun grading Kayden
- [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.
Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)
- [x] Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute
- [x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives
- [x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions
- [x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks
Per check. 0.55 not attempted/no check 0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime 0.8 mastery and runtime 0.9 above and beyond.
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.
0.9: Was very on task, code commits were meaningful to the project. 0.9: Video demonstrated how the feature works, and explained how to use it 0.9: Has an issue that explains initial plan, and details the goals of the feature 0.85: Issue details key parts of code that appear in the key commit 0.85: Had consistent commits throughout the 3 weeks, code significantly contributed to overall project
Overall: 0.88/0.9 (97.8%)
Individual Review "Matthew Wakayama" grading "David"
Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)
Overall Pros: Overall, this is a really cool racing game, and it's a fun way to get users to interact with Binary. The space SASS background is clean-looking and I really like the variety of sprites to play with. Grows: Maybe consider expanding the game to truly go above and beyond, for example, it would be cool if there was an option to swap the binary and decimal, so the user would enter a decimal value that corresponds to a given binary value. Also, make sure to consistently show progress throughout the project. Other than that, super awesome job!
Individual Review Aditya grading Matthew
[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.
Was an influential member of his team, contributed well in plans, design, and individual feature. Could have created more individual reviews segmenting improvements in code, however their was sufficient amount of documentation done by him for his group's project. 0.9
Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)
Well organized, program explained everything well and included a complete demo going over the top to explain all the features. Minimal mouse scrolling, added indicators to and easy to understand captions making it clear what he was talking about and referencing. 0.9
Had a plan and uploaded changes into previous work, looked great and implemented retrospective. Had instructions for program and a link to detailed retrospective highlighting different parts of code. 0.9
Had multiple commits and proof of work. Analyzes code in retrospective with possible improvements. Could have organized it a little better in terms of the different aspects he wanted improved. 0.8
There is evidence of all commits and looks to have contributed greatly. He had commits spread out, commented code segments. Work is original and up to date. Possibly could have organized code better to make it easier to understand for viewers. 0.8
Final Score: 0.86
Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.
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.
Individual Review Trevor H grading Andrew K (edited for better feedback but the grades were not changed)
Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)
[x] Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute (0.7) The video has readable, understandable captions which explain the project. However, the web demo itself was really hard to understand and a bit unreasonable to play without a system to teach me about binary and ascii interpretations
[x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives (0.9) The plans are clear and the ideation goes above and beyond -- it shows excellent planning skills.
[x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions (0.8) Key commits are highlighted in issues.
[x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks (0.8) Key commits for three weeks with some inconsistencies.
Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.
My comment:
Team Review Trevor H grading Matthew W
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 Excellent planning for all weeks of the project with multiple diagrams for each feature. The plans match the features with fidelity (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 Team said that they improved the project based on Mr. Mortensens feedback by adding instructions, but I don't see this feedback written down anywhere (0.7).
[x] Showing key accomplishments according to requirement in Frontend such as Binary Math, ASCII, Unicode, Color Codes, Logic Gates, etc. I see a lot of ways to represent binary but I wish I saw a bit more diversity between features such as incorporating color codes, logic gates, or other ways to represent binary (0.75)
[x] Showing key user interaction and learning(s). For instance how you visualized Algorithms, Data, Data Structures. Or, how you provided response and Feedback to user on their success in learning. Algorithmns, data, and data structures are all displayed clearly which helped me visualize what was going on in the code. It was helpful (0.8)
Overall score: 0.81/0.9 Glows:
Grows:
Some of the games are really hard to play. I wish that there were more instructions and I was taught more about binary instead of jumping straight in.
Per check.
0.55 not attempted/no check
0.7 attempted, incoomplete, but some runtime
0.8 mastery and runtime
0.9 above and beyond.
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.
Final review on our website
Retrospective page