Team:Qdai/Feedback
Judging_Feedback For Qdai
Comments from the judges
Judge 1
Judge 2
Judge 3
Judge 4
Judge 5
Judge 6
Judge 1
- The team has completed the wiki page well and designed a reasonale model to solve the problem of phosphorus. They also tried to promote science communication with high school.
- It would be better to use more modeling evidence to support that their system can work.
Judge 2
- Human practices section is well done. Team interacted with several stakeholders and had discussions with people that would impact the project.
- I would have liked to see more experimental documentation with discussion of what worked and what did not
Judge 3
- The idea is nice, with concrete applications.
- The modeling and experiment are not strong enough.
Judge 4
- I found the problem you chose to tackle very relevant. I also found that your design is rational and has great potential to work. I enjoyed your presentation. Furthermore, your collaborations were diverse.
- I found your project very ambitious. I had an issue with your engineering and your implementation. The engineering page did not show that you followed the design, build and test cycle. I understand that this might have been difficult during the times we are in, however, engineering does not require lab work. You could've tested your project by including information from various sources such as modeling or integrated human practices and then reiterated in your project design. The implementation page did not show you studied the real world application of your project carefully and methodically. Overall very good effort on your part.
Judge 5
- Well done for participating with your team for the first time in the iGEM competition. Must have been quite a challenge given the pandemic. I really enjoyed reading and listening how you've used the human practice part to shape your project and how you've learned a lot about the phosphor market. Some institutes even seem to want more phosphor instead of less in the river. Great work in discovering these opinions! Hope your university (and perhaps you) will participate again in 2021!
- *I would suggest to enter the parts in the registry, so it can be a resource for future teams *Also the wiki contains quite a few pdf pages, would be more readable to have them as text on the website. *You've modelled the system, but it was not clear how this influenced the design of your parts. Would be great to explain that a bit more indepth, so it is also more clear to see how the 'design-build-test' engineering cycle is implemented
Judge 6
- Overall good work on your project, despite the difficulties of working on the lab or meeting teammates due to Covid-19. Although you may be lacking in experimental results you seem to have researched well on your topic and modeled it, so congratulations. Great job reaching out to different stakeholders related to your project. Good luck moving forward!
- although your contribution has come from literature, it would be wise in the future to provide some more critical analysis of what you found. your description was very surface level, and perhaps going into further detail about the methodology would be helpful to ensure you fulfill this requirement. I thought your team was lacking in a reflective response of how your team used the input taken from stakeholders to really make impactful changes in your project, hence you are missing a key component of integrated human practices. Furthermore, your engineering success documentation was poorly done. Although you may be lacking in experimental results, you still could have talked more about your theoretical journey and the difficulties that you faced and how you overcame them.
Details of the votes
The tables below present the actual number of votes by the judges. They are provided to help you
understand how the judges interpreted your project. Each row represents one aspect of your project. The boxes contain the number of votes. Higher
votes are on the left.
| Project - Standard Track | |||||||||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | How much did the team accomplish (addressed a real world problem, produced BioBricks, carried out Human Practices, created a wiki, presentation, poster, etc.)? | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | How impressive is this project? | ||||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | Did the project work or is it likely to work? | ||||
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Is the project likely to have an impact? | |||||
| 2 | 1 | 3 | How well were engineering principles used (e.g., design-build-test cycle, use of standards, modularity, etc.)? | ||||||
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | How thoughtful and thorough was the team's consideration of human practices? | |||||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | How much of the work did the team do themselves and how much was done by others? | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Did the team design a project based on synthetic biology and standard components (BioBricks, software, etc.)? | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Are the project components well documented on the team's wiki/Registry pages (parts should be documented in the Registry)? | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | How competent were the team members at answering questions? | |||||
| Project - Special Track | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Wiki | |||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | How well does the wiki communicate the team's project and their goals? | ||||
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Did the team clearly document their project and support their results with convincing evidence? | |||||
| 1 | 3 | 2 | Is the wiki well designed, functional, and easy to navigate? | ||||||
| 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | Will the wiki be a compelling record of the team's project for future teams? | |||||
| Presentation | |||||||||
| 2 | 1 | 3 | How well does the presentation communicate the team's project and their goals? | ||||||
| 2 | 1 | 3 | Do the presentation design elements effectively communicate the technical content? | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | Did you find the presentation engaging? | ||||||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | Were reference material and data acknowledged appropriately? | ||||||
| Poster | |||||||||
| 2 | 3 | 1 | How well does the poster communicate the team's project and their goals? | ||||||
| 2 | 1 | 3 | Did you find the poster engaging? | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 1 | Do the poster design elements effectively communicate the technical content? | ||||||
| 3 | 2 | 1 | Were reference material and data acknowledged appropriately? | ||||||
| Integrated Human Practices | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Education | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Model | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Measurement | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Entrepreneurship | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Software Tool | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Hardware | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Plant Synthetic Biology | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Sustainable | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Inclusivity | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| New Basic Part | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| New Composite Part | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||
| Part Collection | |||||||||
| No votes cast for this category | |||||||||