Extra groups outside of my class I graded:

Period 1: Aidan, Rayyan, Nathan, Daniel

Frontend Page: 3.9/4

The group successfully achieved key features as demonstrated during the 1-minute demo. The frontend page is functional, allowing users to interact with different canvas assignments and add/delete tasks. The ability to see this in action during the demo was quite impressive.

Knowledge, How It Is Made: 4/4

The group showed a strong understanding of how the project is made and effectively explained it during the 2-minute demo. Deploying the backend on AWS and using Python Flask to create endpoints that the frontend can fetch using Javascript is a commendable approach. The use of JSON data from the Canvas API to populate the calendar and the ability to save tasks in local storage demonstrate a good grasp of technical concepts.

Value: 0.9/1

The most valuable aspect of the project, as mentioned, is the calendar feature, which allows users to easily view assignments and add their own tasks. This feature provides practical utility for users.

Self Team Grade: 8.95/10

Overall, the group project seems to have performed well, achieving the key technical features and demonstrating a good understanding of the technologies used. The value aspect, though valuable, could potentially be expanded further to enhance the overall project. The self-team grade reflects a commendable effort, and the project shows promise.

Period 2: Saaras, Andrew, William, Ryan, Daniel

Criteria/Key Features:

Frontend: 3.6-4.0

The frontend of the project received a score in the range of 3.6-4.0. It successfully moved from instructions to gameplay, and it generated excitement among users.

Backend: 3.6-4.0

The backend of the project also received a score in the range of 3.6-4.0. The group shared a base64 image and discussed it, which showcases their knowledge and technical abilities. They provided relations to pages, indicating a strong understanding of how the project is structured.

API:

The API aspect of the project was not explicitly scored.

Agile, 2 people did talking:

The review does not provide a specific score for this aspect, but it implies that two team members were actively engaged in communication.

HOOK:

Points: 3.6-4.0

The project received a score in the range of 3.6-4.0 for the hook aspect. It had clear instructions and smoothly transitioned into gameplay, creating excitement among users.

KNOWLEDGE: 3.6-4.0

The knowledge aspect of the project scored in the range of 3.6-4.0. The group shared a base64 image and discussed it, demonstrating a strong grasp of technical concepts. They also provided valuable relations to various pages, emphasizing their depth of understanding.

VALUE: 0.6-1.0

The project was deemed to have a value score in the range of 0.6-1.0. It is seen as a solid foundation for a more extensive game.

WOW FACTOR:

The project was noted for having a database for storage, making gameplay enjoyable. However, specific scoring for the wow factor was not provided.

Reason:

The game’s fun gameplay and the inclusion of a database for storage were highlighted as impressive elements of the project.

9.75/10

Period 2: Dante, Jordan, Jake, Ethan

Criteria/Key Features:

  • Frontend: 3.6-4.0
    • The group’s frontend implementation falls within the range of 3.6-4.0. The presentation began by discussing their About page with a touch of humor, which engaged the audience. However, as they transitioned to movies, they encountered issues related to genre problems that impacted the flow.
  • Backend: 3.6-4.0
    • In the backend, the project also achieved a score in the range of 3.6-4.0. While there were some identified bugs, the team showcased an in-depth understanding of storing favorite data and implementing SQL for this purpose. They discussed different endpoints for APIs, indicating a solid grasp of technical details.
  • API:
    • The review did not explicitly score the API aspect.
  • Agile:
    • Agile practices and team communication were not given a specific score, but the review suggested a continuous conversation that kept the presentation engaging.

HOOK:

  • Points: 3.6-4.0
    • The team’s presentation received a score ranging from 3.6-4.0. They initiated the discussion with an About page presentation that infused humor, effectively capturing the audience’s attention. The transition to movies was seamless, but some hurdles related to genre issues were encountered, slightly affecting the overall presentation.

KNOWLEDGE: 3.6-4.0

  • The knowledge aspect of the project was rated within the 3.6-4.0 range. While some bugs were identified, the team demonstrated a strong understanding of data storage for user favorites, employing SQL for this purpose. They also engaged in a comprehensive discussion regarding various endpoints for APIs, showcasing their depth of knowledge in the technical aspects of their project.

VALUE: 0.6-1.0

  • The project received a value score ranging from 0.6-1.0. It appeared to be at the initial stages of transitioning into an entertainment search platform, hinting at promising future potential.

WOW FACTOR:

  • The presentation was noted for the wow factor related to query results. However, specific scoring for this aspect was not provided.

Reason:

  • The audience found the team’s humorous approach to the About page engaging. The focus on storing favorite data and SQL implementation demonstrated their technical prowess. While there were minor bugs and genre-related challenges, the project showed promise as an entertainment search platform. The query results were highlighted as a particularly impressive aspect of their presentation.

Overall Grade: 9.0/10