Overall, everyone who submitted something did at least a good job.
There was variance. Some are more insightful than others. Some more directly addressed the question (how does the research utilize class concepts), while others critiqued the tool itself. Still others decided to praise the tool (sometimes in ways that didn’t necessarily add). I will account for at least some of the variance by the way the question was phrased.
But, Almost all the things were (at least) good. There were a few (4) that were just OK (and one that might have been a little less than OK). But since I am not sure I can objectively qualify why things fell into these different bins, I think its more fair just to say that those who didn’t do “good” legitimately had different ideas about the assignment.
So, everyone who turned it in gets “100%.” We’ll count this as a “written participation” – but emphasize it more than the individual Piazza assignments.
To the person who did a visual critique of the paper: you are totally right! I can’t tell you how hard it was to cram everything in to 10 pages. And it really does show (the paper is way too dense).