Marking criteria

The following marking criteria should be sent to the students once all groups have been formed:

# 2 Page Paper

- **Summary**: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and
  purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been
  provided?  [10%]
- **A statement of need**: Do the authors clearly state what problems the
  software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
- **State of the field**: Do the authors describe how this software compares
  to other commonly-used packages? [10%]
- **Quality of writing**: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not
  require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)? [10%]
- **References**: Is the list of references complete, and is everything
  cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets,
  software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax? [10%]

# 15 Presentation

- **Functionality**: Have the functional claims of the software been
  confirmed? [10%]
- **Documentation**: Does the documentation have a Tutorial, How to section,
  Reference and Explanation section? Is it clear? Is the source code clear?
  [10%]
- **Modularity**: Is the code written in a modular way? [10%]
- **Testing**: Is all code tested? [10%]
- **Presentation**: Was the presentation format used appropriately? Were the
  visual aids appropriate? [10%]


Note that this marking criteria has some overlap with the review criteria
for the Journal of Open Source Software
<https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_checklist.html>. Some examples
of papers written for that journal that can be helpful are:

- Matching: A Python library for solving matching games <https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.02169>
- Nashpy: A Python library for the computation of Nash equilibria <https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.00904>

Examples of presentations are available at: https://vknight.org/pop/