Final Project Implementation

Evaluation Rubric

The Final Project Implementation will be evaluated using the following rubric:

1. Code Quality and Efficiency (25 Points)

  • Excellent (21-25 Points): Code is exceptionally clean, well-organized, and adheres to industry best practices. It uses optimized algorithms and data structures, has efficient error handling, and is free of bugs. Demonstrates advanced programming concepts and excellent use of required tools like GitHub.
  • Good (16-20 Points): Code is mostly clean with good organization, demonstrating adherence to common best practices, with occasional lapses. Efficient algorithms, few minor bugs, and good use of GitHub.
  • Satisfactory (11-15 Points): Adequate organization, some inefficiencies, and adherence to best practices. Appropriate use of algorithms and GitHub but with areas for optimization.
  • Needs Improvement (6-10 Points): Lacking organization, limited adherence to best practices, and frequent bugs. Inefficient use of algorithms and suboptimal use of GitHub.
  • Poor (1-5 Points): Disorganized, poor understanding of best practices, algorithms, and structures. Frequent bugs and poor use of GitHub.

2. Implementation of Features and Functionality (25 Points)

  • Excellent (21-25 Points): All planned features, including UI, back-end logic, database connectivity, and minimum feature set are implemented and fully functional. Demonstrates creativity and goes beyond basic requirements.
  • Good (16-20 Points): Most planned features implemented with minor issues. Meets main requirements but lacks advanced features.
  • Satisfactory (11-15 Points): Some key features implemented; others missing, incomplete, or have issues. Meets basic requirements but lacks depth.
  • Needs Improvement (6-10 Points): Few key features properly implemented. Several features incomplete or non-functional. Does not fully meet basic requirements.
  • Poor (1-5 Points): Very few features implemented. Fails to meet most basic requirements and is not functional.

3. Code Integration and Version Control (25 Points)

  • Excellent (21-25 Points): Expert use of version control with clear, frequent, and descriptive commits. Seamless code integration, excellent management of merge conflicts, and effective use of GitHub Projects.
  • Good (16-20 Points): Good use of version control with regular commits. Well-managed code integration with minor issues in merge conflicts or GitHub Projects usage.
  • Satisfactory (11-15 Points): Adequate use of version control and GitHub Projects with less descriptive commits. Some issues in code integration and managing merge conflicts.
  • Needs Improvement (6-10 Points): Limited use of version control, unclear commits, frequent issues in code integration, and poor use of GitHub Projects.
  • Poor (1-5 Points): Minimal or no use of version control. Poorly handled code integration, severe issues in managing merge conflicts, and ineffective use of GitHub Projects.

4. Maintainability and Documentation (25 Points)

  • Excellent (21-25 Points): Well-documented, easy to maintain code, planning for future development, and adaptability. Includes comprehensive README and clear project organization.
  • Good (16-20 Points): Generally maintainable with good documentation, consideration for future changes, and minor areas for improvement. Includes a clear README.
  • Satisfactory (11-15 Points): Somewhat maintainable but lacks comprehensive documentation. Some consideration for future development, but with significant limitations. README present but lacking details.
  • Needs Improvement (6-10 Points): Difficult to maintain, sparse or unclear documentation, little consideration for future development. Inadequate README.
  • Poor (1-5 Points): Very difficult to maintain, lacking documentation, and no evident planning for future development. No or very poor README.

Additional Note

  • Based on peer reflections and contributions to deliverables (GitHub commits, presentation participation, etc.), the instructor reserves the right to score each team member differently on the project. This approach ensures fair assessment of individual efforts and contributions to the project.

This rubric aligns with the project guidelines and emphasizes the importance of using tools like GitHub effectively. It also accounts for individual contributions and teamwork dynamics.

Submitting Your Work

Your work must be submitted Anchor for degree credit and to Gradescope for grading.

  1. Ensure that you commit and push your local code changes to your remote repository. (Note: In general, you should commit and push frequently, so that you have a backup of your work, so that there is evidence that you did your own work, and so that you can return to a previous state easily.)
  2. Upload your submission to Gradescope via the appropriate submission link by selecting the correct GitHub repository from the drop-down list.
  3. Export a zip archive of your GitHub repository by visiting your repo on GitHub, clicking on the green Code button, and selecting "Download Zip".
  4. Upload the zip file of your repository to Anchor using the form below.

Note: Anchor submissions can occur at any time during the term, but it is critical that you upload all of your work to Anchor before the last day of the term. Gradescope submissions must be submitted before the deadline (or the late deadline, if applicable).