← Return to Project 3
Project 3: Peer review instructions
DUE: Wed Apr 24 @ 11:59pm Eastern
An essential task for every project is to simply get it working.
Beyond that, we then want to optimize how it's working, addressing such questions as...
- Is the code easy to understand and update?
- Are there more efficient ways in which the code could be written?
- Are there any security vulnerabilities?
- Are there bugs that were missed at the time of development and testing?
- Are there usability concerns or issues in regards to the interface?
And so, the final component of Project 3 is to look closer at the how and see where there’s room for improvement. With that in mind, let's outline the goals of a peer review.
Different students will get different benefits from the peer reviews.
- If you’re a novice programmer and you’re reviewing the work of an experienced programmer, you will have the opportunity to see approaches to code that you might not have thought of yet.
- If you’re an experienced programmer and you’re reviewing the work of a novice programmer, you can reinforce your own understanding by sharing your expertise and insight.
The peer review is intended to accommodate for this spectrum of experiences, as you’ll see by the design of the questions. For many of the questions, the benefit is actually for the reviewer not the reviewee.
Regardless of your background, I understand that it may be uncomfortable to have your code reviewed by a peer. You may also feel uncomfortable about reviewing someone else's code if you feel your own skills are still at the beginner level.
I urge you look past these discomforts and recognize that some our greatest strides as programmers come when we have the opportunity to get a variety of perspectives on our work.
Finally, please be respectful and constructive in your answers.
- Visit this spreadsheet and see which student's project you've been assigned to review.
- Create a copy of this markdown file in the root of your Project 3; name this file
- Commit this new file to your p3 repository and note the url (e.g.
- Complete your review by editing your
peer-review.md file, answering the prompts provided in the aforementioned template.
- Remove the instructions for each prompt when complete; we only need to see your answers, not the instructions.
- Make sure your file is using properly formatted Markdown syntax.
- When your review is complete, commit the final changes, then submit the URL (e.g.
http://github.com/username/p3/peer-review.md) in Canvas under the assignment Project 3 - Peer Review.
- Late reviews will not earn the 1 point reserved for “timeliness”; late reviews are only accepted until +7 days after the due date.
- While every student is encouraged to participate in this peer review exercise, only students taking this course for graduate credit are required to participate. If you are taking this course for undergraduate credit and wish to opt out from this assignment, simply note this in the comment box when completing the Project 3 Peer Review submission in Canvas.
- If the project you are assigned to review is non-functional, email me (firstname.lastname@example.org) for reassignment.
The points you receive for your review will not be about right/wrong answers, but the quality and attention you give to your answers.
- (10) Review is of exceptional quality. All answers are comprehensive, thoughtful, and constructive. All obvious issues were noted, and clear explanation/suggestions for improvement were outlined. All instructions were followed correctly. It's apparent that the student put a lot of care into the review.
- (9) Review is of great quality. Most of the answers are comprehensive, thoughtful, and constructive. All obvious issues were noted. Some explanation/suggestions for improvement were outlined. Some of the instructions were not followed correctly (e.g. incorrect Markdown formatting, template instructions not removed, etc.)
- (8) Peer review is of average quality. The questions are all satisfactorily addressed. Most obvious issues were addressed. Some/several of the instructions were not followed correctly.
- (7) Peer review is below average quality and could be improved. Some of the answers were terse and should have been more developed. Also, some obvious issues may have been overlooked. Several of the instructions were not followed correctly.
- (1-6) Review has notable room for improvement. It appears rushed and obvious issues were overlooked. Several of the instructions were not followed correctly.
- (0) Review was not completed.