Peer review to Alex - from Fabio

[Link to the lesson](https://hackmd.io/Z-orfb4iTlaoiY-C2-Xqdw) [Feedback template](https://hackmd.io/75MuGvK3TRCUj6i5enK96A) # Peer review template ## Name of the person reviewing [Fabio A. Schuh] ## Name of the project being reviewed [Educational Water Pump](https://hackmd.io/WYnnMo08TJ6ro0U-w0nlKw?both) **Provide feedback in the form of recommendations, observations, suggestions, or questions** The project is open access and above all is visual, I like that. It starts by telling a bit of the story involved, this way giving context to the project and motivating reading further. The link provided is also a good context brought to the project. The images placed fit well in the context. The first illustrating the challenge/game, the second illustrating the different physical principle that are intended to be used. At this second image I was not able to understand what is the principle or how this pump works (I should admit that I did not what the full videos, maybe it is explained there). Explaining the physical principle may allow possible reviwers to come with ideas on how to implement this new concept in an effective way. The third image seems to be of a centrifugal pump to my unexperienced eyes, then I could not relate to the different physical principle as well. Adding a legend to the photos would increase understanding about it. ### Give feedback on your hardware documentation **Look for the following:** - Is the project findable or accessible? - The project is framed in the HackMD template provided and was published in the weekly notes, being easy to find and open to whoever has a link to it. - Check if the readme contains an introduction with a clear value proposition? - The project has a value proposition based on the Template 1 "Moore’s original 6-step value proposition formula". It gives a fair idea of what the problem is. Also, who is interested on it and how this project might tackle this. ``` Other points still not covered in the development, for future evaluation: - Check if you can figure out easy to navigate is the project via the folders - Check if assembly instructions are published; - Check if the bill of materials is published; - There is some contribution guidance is published; - published files are shared in original format (for example Gerber files or cad files) - use of versioning control system - use of issue management system - all this information is published under a license allowing commercial reuse. ``` ### Give feedback on your project ``` The main goal is to see if you have set up a systematic plan to realize your project vision and if it's realistic in terms of time and scope. Instructions: - Is there a list of priorities or hypothesis - This could be in the form of a roadmap - or a progress board with a list of features - or GitHub issues - (Some kind of project documentation that reflects your thinking) - Is there consistency between ideas and expectations, and ongoing prototyping activities - Do you think these prioritized tasks are feasible during the academy or the next 3 months - Or would you recommend breaking down the project into smaller iterations ``` **FEEDBACK from Fabio** The project contains a list with the major points to be achieved. I believe these objectives are going to be updated along with the development of the academy and the project. They are reasonable and seem achievable within the timeline. Just like myself, it seems like Alex did not have all the time he would like to work on the project. Definition of the priorities may be helpful in achieving what is most necessary first, in order to have a good part of the project ready by the end of the academy.