| Secret Name | % | |||||||||||||
| Summary 5 Scheduling | Grade So Far % | Problem Definition | Approach & Originality | Assumptions & Limitations | Result, Impact, Important | Talk Criticism | RAW | % Score | Date Submitted | # Days late | Final Grade | please grade the summaries. See already graded S1 to see example comments (shee with grades for S1 t is already posted, Due date is | ||
| Max | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 09/09 | 0.94 | ||||||
| >24 | 0.70 | |||||||||||||
| Total | 91.7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 8 | ||||||
| Acrobat | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Well done. | |
| Andy | 21 | 84 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 21 | 84 | 09/09 | 0 | 84 | Only stylistic remarks and compsure instead of specific concept for presenter critique | |
| Artistic Potato | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Nicely done. | |
| Bamboo | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Great job. | |
| Bellhop One | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | OK. | |
| Birdseye | 22 | 88 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 22 | 88 | 09/09 | 0 | 88 | Speaker critique too generic. | |
| Brimstone | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | ||
| Broadside | 21 | 84 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 21 | 84 | 09/09 | 0 | 84 | Speaker critique is not informative enough. | |
| Buckeye | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 09/09 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Buckshot | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 09/09 | 0 | 0 | No submission | |
| Cactus | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Excellent! Top notch. | |
| Carbine | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Excellent! | |
| Carpet | 20 | 80 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 20 | 80 | 09/09 | 0 | 80 | Lacks some depths (eg.., the contention on the bus, caching etc etc). | |
| Cartwheel | 18 | 72 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 18 | 72 | 09/09 | 0 | 72 | Lacking some details and depths. | |
| Challenger | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 92 | 09/09 | 0 | 92 | Great job. But you keep missing critiquing speaker with enough substance | |
| Chandelier | 20 | 80 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 20 | 80 | 09/09 | 0 | 80 | Need more details, especially when discussing reults. Speaker critique too generic. | |
| Checkerboard | 22 | 88 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 22 | 88 | 09/09 | 0 | 88 | Better than previous summaries. Still needt o add some more depth to your summaries. | |
| Checkmate | 22 | 88 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 22 | 88 | 09/09 | 0 | 88 | Critique is on on the stylistics o/w summary is well done. | |
| Coach House | 22 | 88 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 22 | 88 | 09/09 | 0 | 88 | Nice job but speaker lacks substance | |
| Companion | 20 | 80 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 20 | 80 | 09/09 | 0 | 80 | Wrong paper | |
| Curbside | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | ||
| Driftwood | 20 | 80 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 20 | 80 | 09/09 | 0 | 80 | Needs more depth. Speaker critique too generic and not centered on a topic | |
| Echo | 16 | 64 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 64 | 09/09 | 0 | 64 | Better than previous still need to discuss limitations and results at a deeper level the speaker critique does not center on a topic. | |
| Firelord | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 09/09 | 0 | 0 | No submssion | |
| Hudson | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Great job! | |
| Lightfoot | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Good job. | |
| Magic | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 92 | 09/09 | 0 | 92 | Nice job but not speaker critique. | |
| Peninsula | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Cannot read file. (file is damaged) | |
| Pincushion | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 92 | 09/09 | 0 | 92 | Good, presenter critique could have had more substance. | |
| Playground | 24 | 96 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 24 | 96 | 09/09 | 0 | 96 | OK. Speaker critique too generic. | |
| Pork Chop | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Great. | |
| Professor | 22 | 88 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 22 | 88 | 09/09 | 0 | 88 | Good, presenter critiqique too generic | |
| Punch Bowl | 18 | 72 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 18 | 72 | 09/09 | 0 | 72 | Too thin, speaker critique need to be centered around a specific topic | |
| Ridgeline | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Well done. | |
| Ringside | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 23 | 92 | 09/09 | 0 | 92 | Good, presenter critique should have had more substance and d to specific topic that was not covered well. | |
| Sandstone | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Excellent! | |
| Shotgun | 22 | 88 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 22 | 88 | 09/09 | 0 | 88 | Well written but lacking substance on presenter critique (student presenter). | |
| Skymaster | 24 | 96 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 24 | 96 | 09/09 | 0 | 96 | No speaker critique but mitigated by analyzing the paper. | |
| Storm King | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 09/09 | 0 | 0 | No submission | |
| Sylvester | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 09/09 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Tower | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Nicely done. !!! | |
| Volcano | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | OK. | |
| Windstone | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/09 | 0 | 100 | Great! |