Since the professor posted listing of the proposals in reverse order when they were received, I will start from the bottom up to give some fairness and respect to the ones who submitted their final drafts right first.
1 - 2: Hard to reference back to the time line without diagram no section devision
2 - 1: Pessimistic summary - proposer is not as enthusiastic about its own proposal
3 - 1: Presentational value (no sections, no graphs) lost my personal excitement
4 - 3: General component interaction diagram was presented, but no security, legal, ethical, and other potential issues were discussed.
(26) RH score = 6/20
1 - 1: Qualifications of proposer are great, however one thing really stood out as a warning flag: "I have fully completed several large-scale software projects from start to end." From learning perspective of this class and real world developing experience, it seems to be not feasible for one developer work on any large-scale projects by themselves. I would be highly interested to see actually what the proposer did and what had proposer considered to be a large-scale project. When the large-scale project was mentioned, something like OS scale project comes to mind.
2 - 0: Restaurant customers vary a lot. Proposed application is somewhat neat for 'geeky' customers, but not ready for the general public as not every one has smart phone with Android OS.
3 - 0: Seeing simple periods missing at the end of the paragraph, lowered my excitement even more after seeing no realistic usage of application as it was targeted to particular type of customers vs. a wider variety of regular restaurant customers.
4 - 5: Clear system description.
(25) ED This is my personal proposal, so as declared before, I am deferring from ranking my own proposal due to the conflict of interests.
(24) IG score = 1/20
1 - 0: Scope is very broad, so hard to estimate the feasibility of project's completion
2 - 1: There are many potential conflicts could be raised with proposed application: from approval of usefulness of application by School Administrations to parent's approval.
3 - 0: Excitement was reduced by misspelled words and poor formating of the document (Section "System Description" started at the end of the page with the text block starting on the next one)
4 - 0: Scope is too broad
(23) ANS score = 7/20
1 - 0: Scope is very broad. Number and scale of proposed quizzes, informational blocks, or games is not clear.
2 - 4: Seems to be a good tool used by many who have an interest in military services, but not necessarily aware of which particular branches might be the best fit and the most interest to the potential applicant.
3 - 3: Seems like a great useful tool that could be potentially used by many users. Great document structure, however, no system component design nor some sampler of the user's interaction (for instance no concrete game ideas).
4 - 3: Title shouldn't have been so generic, otherwise great introductory of the proposed product.
(22) AS score = 0/20
Caught eye attention to the high quality formatted report. Great and neat formatting.
1 - 0: There was no timeline (all described steps were not associated with any time restrains). Scope was unclear as well, and didn't see any qualifications of the proposer.
2 - 0: Interest for proposed project is very low level due to already created social networks (Facebook and others) that UNM students have available to them and actively using it: http://www.facebook.com/universityofnewmexico .
Similarly smart phone applications available for those networks. It is seems to be much simpler to just create a new social group on Facebook. 3 - 0: Language seems to be very informal for proposal.
4 - 0: The key idea of making this product unique is barred on page 7, where introduction was very generally talking about the social network similar to FB. Very misleading and disappointing to see great idea to be barred like that and possibly lost due to the length of the proposal.
(21) VS score = 15/20
1 - 3: Scope of the modulars is very broad. Otherwise, proposed GUI application seems be feasible and clear
2 - 3: Personally, I can see some great usability of the product if the modulars are fun and application is easy to use
3 - 4: Proposal left a really good impression, and proposer seem to have right qualifications for leading this project to completion
4 - 5: Ideas were very clear
(20) DWS score=18/20
1 - 3: Scope seems to be clear and well defined, until timeline section where Identification Interface was introduced that was not mentioned before. There is no description of what it may look like or the functionality of it. Realizing that proposed project dealing with images identification, this part can be the most difficult by looking at the proposer's qualifications.
2 - 5: Proposed project have a high usability and idea is unique that feels in unfulfilled space of software applications
3 - 5: Project presented in the well clear format and in very professional manner
4 - 5: Ideas were well defined and clear
(19) JD2 score-0/20
1 - 0: Scope of the project seems to be too high for the given time constrains
2 - 0: Other products already out there, and proposed project's survival is seems to be very low
3 - 0: Idea of the project is not unique and products such a proposed already there. Also by looking at qualifications of the proposer, this highly graphical interface seems to be too high of the scope for the time constrains of this class. Budget table was cut off. One empty page right one the middle of the document looks really bad from the presentational perspective.
4 - 0: Scope was really broad.
(18) JD1 score- --/20
Kudos for making two proposals, but personally I would prefer to see one with higher quality and formatting. ;)
1 - -- Really lost interest in looking for feasibility of the project
2 - 0: Doesn't seem to be appealing nor beneficial to the end user to have proposed application
3 - 0: Seeing the similar bad formatting of the tables and empty pages, just left me not wanting to go in greater reading detail of the proposal
4 - -- Really lost interest in looking for clarity of the project
With all respect to all of the proposals, from seeing how much reviewing does take time, I would still scan through all of them, but will not be providing any feed back, unless it truly caught my attention. All of the reviews provided here was the result of two nights worth of work, about 5 hours each day.
Note to all :
I tried to me as honest as I could, not being biased, and without meaning to offend anyone by reviewing their hard work. Most of the proposals are great and took time for completing.
I truly find this assignment as a given opportunity for great learning experience in seeing what qualities really attract reader's attention and what (even minor) flaws draw the excitement levels down.
Reviewing experience will definitely help me personally understand reviewing process and make be a better proposal maker!
