Open Tanuj253 opened 10 months ago
Individual Review Dante A grading Tanuj
[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.
Helped create plans for his team and made sure everyone on his team was ontime with the work that needed to be completed. Also, it was clear that he was knowledgeable and helped his group and served as a scrum master for his table. .88/.9 Individuals Video, Issue(s), Commits(s)
[x] Video in CPT caption style , includes Web demo of key contribution to project, 1 minute
Video was very nice explained all the code and how it worked with informational captions. Also, showed how code worked and demonstrated the outputs. Could limit the mouse wiggling and maybe draw arrows pointing to the important parts. .85/.9
[x] Issue(s) that show plans/progress to team objectives
Showed group issues regarding the plans/ what he added to his code.
[x] Highlights of key commit(s) in Issues, summarizes code contributions
Showed three key commits about all the basis for the game he created, all of the instructions for the game, and a commit regarding the styles. Worked on 5x5 binary game, worked on all the design, grids, and functions of the game. All commits are equally spaced apart showing that he put in consistent work and didn't cram everything. .81/.9
[x] Review GitHub analytics for key commits in each weeks during the project, shows consistent participation for 3 weeks
-showed me his key commits and all of his progress. Was consistent throughout all three of the weeks with solid commits throughout al the days.
.81/.9
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.
.84/9
Final score was a .84/.9 He knew how to explain all of his code and showed all of his contributions very effectively. His code's design looks very nice and well done. All of his code runs as intended. His video is great and had everything he needed.
Video: 5x5 Binary Video
Issues that helped: Issue for review by Andrew: Peer Review Issue to update what work was still in order: Worklist Issue
Key commits: Initial commit w/ first code: Key Commit #1 Instructions: Key Commit #2 Matching the style to the rest of the games: Key Commit #3
Insight to Github analytics of work done by team: Analytics
Full code: