CSP Individual Final

[Lin-cT]

CSP Individual Review:

1. One minute video, prepared in CPT style to highlight your feature with the project ie no voice and captions (Video)
2. Correlation to CPT, an article that show how your features or pull requests map to College Board requirements (Blog)

[JasonGao76]

Peer Review:

Video

• Done well:
• Showcased all features of the program clearly
• Concise, accurate, and relevant captions that did not block the program
• Good use of zooms to focus on the program's functionality
• Can improve on:
• Expand more on the features
• Video quality is slightly low and watermark is a little distracting
• Potential typo at 0:37, "retried" --> retrieved? Blog
• Done well:
• Detailed description of project's purpose and various personal contributions
• Relevant and numerous code sections provided and how it fulfilled CollegeBoard's requirements was explained
• Key commits and reflection was added in addition to the base requirements
• Can improve on:
• Add video requirements and explain how video met these
• Explanations could be more focused on the requirements as some slightly derail into the full functionality or purpose of an aspect rather than how it meets the requirements
• On this note, the explanation for the list/collection type can be expanded on to describe in more detail how it manages complexity
• 2 typos under "All Commits of February" Grade
• 0.95/1. The requirements for the post (showing how code maps to CollegeBoard requirements) was done in good detail, and while some parts could be refined (either expanded to include more detail or edited to focus more on exactly how it fulfills the requirement) it was overall enough, and many code snippets, key commits, and a reflection was included on top.

[RayyanDarugar]

Peer Review:

Video

• Done Well:
• Good showcase of website functionality and how everything worked
• No unnecessary display and concise use of time
• Good captions, explains simply
• To improve:
• Honestly thought it fit collegeboard requirements perfectly, not much to change other than stylistic stuff like watermarks

Blog

• Done Well:
• Clear explanation of requirements and project explanation
• Went above and beyond on blog content
• Strong relevant code sections
• To improve:
• A little too in depth at points - could be more concise
• Missing display of what requirements the video fulfilled
• Seems sometimes redundant

OVERALL GRADE:

• .95/1. Went above and beyond on blog with extra sections like the reflection and key commits, very clear in what you fulfilled. Blog's only problem was conciseness, overall requirements were detailed. Video was clear and to the point, displayed functionality well. Good job!