Students will have two opportunities to provide constructive feedback on your peers' presentations. Although your evaluations will not directly affect their grades, your input will offer valuable insights to help your classmates improve.

Peer Evaluation Process:

• You will be assigned to evaluate one peer's work before their presentation.
• Your evaluations will remain anonymous. Do not reveal whose work you are reviewing.
• You will have five days to submit your review.
• Your review should be 1-3 paragraphs. Submit it through the link below.

What to Address in Your Feedback:

• Start with one or two sentences summarizing the purpose of the map and geospatial analysis in your own words. This helps the presenter understand how their work is perceived.
• Suggest one or two improvements related to the map/cartographic design.
• Provide (at least) two or three suggestions, questions, or alternatives to improve the written description and/or presentation.

Guiding Questions for Peer Evaluation:

• Map
• Is the purpose of the map clear and easy to understand?
• Does your eye naturally focus on key elements, or are there distractions?
• Are all necessary elements included, and are any unnecessary elements removed?
• Does the title, legend, and notes effectively communicate the story behind the map?
• Is there enough information to correctly interpret the map?
• Does the layout use an appropriate number of fonts and styles for clarity?
• Is the layout well-balanced, or are there gaps or cluttered areas?
• If colors are used, do they enhance readability, or are there too many or too few?
• Written Components
• Does the written explanation clearly convey the purpose and significance of the geospatial analysis?
• Is the explanation well-structured, concise, and free of unnecessary jargon?
• Does the written component include all required elements (project introduction, audience description, data sources, visualization choices, and future use of the data)?
• Are there any sections of the written explanation that could be clearer, more precise, or better supported?
• Presentation Components
• Does the author effectively communicate how the map was visualized and why specific design choices were made?
• Did the presenter effectively explain their project without relying too much on reading directly from their written components?
• Was the presenter engaging, clear, and confident in discussing their geospatial analysis?
• Did the presentation stay within the 4-7 minute timeframe while covering all key points?
• Did the presenter respond to questions effectively and demonstrate a strong understanding of their analysis?