Group 1 Honda Generator-Critical Project Review

From GICL Wiki
Revision as of 22:11, 16 September 2013 by Ian26 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Back to the Group 1 Homepage

Critical Project Review

At this point in our project the internal issues we have been dealing with were made bluntly obvious to all group members. Those of us who were not "pulling our own weight" were made aware that, if a significant effort was not made to improve the quality of work presented and the effort, or lack thereof, put forth was not increased, than the end of project peer reviews would reflect that unquestionably.

After Nathan\'s unsatisfactory work on the previous gates he was made fully aware that if he did not step up his efforts to excel on this project, he would be very poorly reviewed. In the rest of group\'s opinion he did not make a significant enough effort to redeem himself and this will be reflected in his peer review.

Although Jordan B was helpful with the compilation of all the different written sections into the wiki, he never took it upon himself to proofread any of the work submitted by the other group members. As group leader one would assume the responsibility of giving a final evaluation of the work submitted by other group members in order to be sure that all work was done correctly and within the constraints presented for each gate. Not to say that it is only his responsibility to proofread the work and be sure of its completion, but as the group leader he did bring it upon himself to be sure of these things. He was made aware of this several times, yet still no final once over was given before submission. On the other hand, Jordan was consistent in the quality of work presented on the individual sections he was given the responsibility of completing. He consistently answered all questions asked in the section and put forth a satisfactory effort overall.

Jordan J was consistent yet again with the quality of work on the sections assigned to him. His efforts toward a better grade for all of us were significant throughout the semester and this was reflected in his quality of work. Jordan meet with Phil during his office hours repeatedly before gates were due, on Wednesday mornings, so that Phil could review our gate, and we would have time to correct the mistakes within our gate. While he was not necessarily a significant presence in the actual physical deconstruction and reconstruction of the generator, he made up for this by accepting more written section responsibilities.

Jimmy also remained consistent is his quality of work. Satisfactory effort was put forth in all respects of his individual responsibilities. He was a major presence in the reconstruction of the generator and aided in the photographing of the assembly process. All of his individual sections were researched fully and developed with necessary background information in order to fully explain the concepts discussed.

Andrew remained consistent with his quality of work as well. His sections were also thoroughly researched and necessary background information was included in his individual sections. The quality of work he presented was satisfactory and he made it a point to explicitly respond the all of the questions presented for his sections. He was also a major presence in the reconstruction process.