| Secret Name | % | |||||||||||||
| Summary 1: Hydra OS not Fast |
Grade So Far % | Problem Definition | Approach & Originality | Assumptions & Limitations | Result, Impact, Important | Talk Criticism | RAW | % Score | Date Submitted | # Days late | Stand out Work Bonus | Final Grade | General Comments : You need to review the actual speaker on how well he covered the paper, ,many of you went into deail about how the 'author' presented the material isntead of the speaker(s) the speakers were Matt or Grant. | |
| Max | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 09/02 | 0.94 | ||||||
| >24 | 0.70 | |||||||||||||
| Total | 95.7 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 8 | ||||||
| Acrobat | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Great! | |
| Andy | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Nicely done, regarditn the presentation critique as it is written it is more about the style rather than how and to whtat extent the content of the paper was covered. Next time focus on that, otherwise well written summar! | |
| Artistic Potato | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Nicely done. | |
| Bamboo | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Nicely done! | |
| Bellhop One | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Good. | |
| Birdseye | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Good. | |
| Brimstone | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Pleas also email instructor in addition to submission, OK. Met threshold but could have discussed some results/benchmarks in more detail | |
| Broadside | 20 | 80 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 80 | 09/02 | 0 | 80 | Not given enough details on the result of the paper. You need to be more specific. Both on limitations/and on the evaluation criteria | |
| Buckeye | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 09/02 | 0 | 0 | No submission. | |
| Buckshot | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 09/02 | 0 | 0 | No submission | |
| Cactus | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | OK at treshold could have provided some more depth and reflection. | |
| Carbine | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Very well done. I also like the detail constructive ideas on how to improve the presenetation. | |
| Carpet | 23 | 100 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 23 | 92 | 09/02 | 0 | 8 | 100 | You did a greaet ob stating some weaknesses of the approach but it seems you missed some of larger keypoints, I think it would have been good to dscriben the result in a neutral and factual manner the good points and bad points (e.g., the difference between RISC and CISC and why that is important, and then based on those results and with detail driving home your criticism of the approach/and result. You did do an excellent good job driving home some of your points however (thus the extra points), but it could have been more thourough. Happy to see critical thinking like this, and enjoyed reading your summary. |
| Cartwheel | 21 | 84 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 84 | 09/02 | 0 | 84 | Not very detailed and lacks depth describing approach and evaluation benchmarks and results. Missing reviews of speakers | |
| Challenger | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Great job (missing criticism of the speaker) you summary was conscise and had lots of detail good work! | |
| Chandelier | 21 | 84 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 84 | 09/02 | 0 | 84 | This summmary is not really describing the key points of the papers at any depth. For exapmle the different benchmarks are not described the resutls are only discussed at high level. The summary have little content. | |
| Checkerboard | 21 | 84 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 21 | 84 | 09/02 | 0 | 84 | OK. missing some key points, such as capabilities and the impact/result. A bit thin. Please email a copy in pdf in addtion to usign the submit command on nike. | |
| Checkmate | 22 | 88 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 22 | 88 | 09/02 | 0 | 88 | Approach and impact could have been described in more detail. | |
| Coach House | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | OK. Perhaps perhaps more details next time, stkll met the threshold. | |
| Companion | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Please submit on csx730 from now on and also email a pdf to instructor. Other. Well done. | |
| Curbside | 21 | 84 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 21 | 84 | 09/02 | 0 | 84 | Lacking some details on how the benchmarked were and on the results. | |
| Driftwood | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Good Job. | |
| Echo | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | missing review of speaker otherwise well done. | |
| Firelord | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | OK. More details would be good. | |
| Hudson | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Well written but missing review of speaker otherwise well done. Real good job reflecting as well. | |
| Lightfoot | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Good. | |
| Magic | 22 | 88 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 22 | 88 | 09/02 | 0 | 88 | Not given enough details on the result of the paper. You need to be more specific. Both on limitations/and, describing the benchmarks, and on the evaluation criteria | |
| Peninsula | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Nicely done. | |
| Pincushion | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Good. | |
| Playground | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 23 | 92 | 09/02 | 0 | 92 | Summary should be more reflective, and you need to describe the evalution method/ and result more in detail. | |
| Pork Chop | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Well done! | |
| Professor | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Nicely done. | |
| Punch Bowl | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 23 | 92 | 09/02 | 0 | 92 | Summary should have more details on how the benchmark worked and what they revealed. You need more details on that, but you did at least discuss one example but still there were key points missing | |
| Ridgeline | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 23 | 92 | 09/02 | 0 | 92 | Lacking some details on how the benchmarked were and on the results. | |
| Ringside | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Niceley written, should hae added more details on how the presentation could have been improved. | |
| Sandstone | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Well done. | |
| Shotgun | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Nice job! | |
| Skymaster | 22 | 88 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 22 | 88 | 09/02 | 0 | 88 | Summary should have more details on how the benchmark worked and what they revealed. You need more details on that, i..e both evalution method/ and result more in detail and don't be afraid to discuss specific examples. | |
| Storm King | 20 | 80 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 80 | 09/02 | 0 | 80 | Not very detailed and lacks depth describing approach and evaluation benchmarks and results. | |
| Sylvester | 23 | 92 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 23 | 92 | 09/02 | 0 | 92 | Some more details on the benchmarks and the result need some more specifics also some reflection would be good. Summary read a bit thin. | |
| Tower | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Well done | |
| Volcano | 24 | 96 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 24 | 96 | 09/02 | 0 | 96 | Please email instructor in addition to the submitting on nike. Different benchmarks could have been desscribed evaluated at more depth. | |
| Windstone | 25 | 100 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 | 100 | 09/02 | 0 | 100 | Good. |