Total: 20 points (of 24 available -- this allows multiple paths through the module)
4 points: The GitHub repository is well-organized, follows best practices (e.g., includes a README file, clear directory structure, and meaningful commit messages), and all necessary files are included. 3 points: The repository is mostly well-organized, with minor issues in structure or completeness. 2 points: The repository is somewhat organized but has significant issues in structure or completeness. 1 point: The repository is poorly organized, with major issues in structure and completeness. 0 points: The repository is missing or does not follow basic organizational practices.
4 points: The notebook correctly reads in the data, handles missing or incorrect data appropriately, and clearly documents these steps. 3 points: The notebook reads in the data correctly but has minor issues in handling or documenting preprocessing steps. 2 points: The notebook reads in the data but has significant issues in handling or documenting preprocessing steps. 1 point: The notebook attempts to read in the data but fails or lacks documentation for preprocessing steps. 0 points: The notebook does not read in any data.
4 points: The data analysis is thorough, appropriate for the data, and well-executed. Plots are clear, well-labeled, and enhance understanding of the data. 3 points: The data analysis is mostly appropriate and well-executed, with minor issues in the plots or their interpretation. 2 points: The data analysis is somewhat appropriate but has significant issues in execution or interpretation of plots. 1 point: The data analysis is attempted but poorly executed, with unclear or incorrect plots. 0 points: The notebook does not perform any meaningful data analysis or plotting.
4 points: The code is concise, semantically meaningful, and well-commented. The notebook includes clear and informative markdown cells that explain the analysis and findings. 3 points: The code is mostly concise and meaningful, with minor issues in commenting or markdown explanations. 2 points: The code is somewhat clear but has significant issues in conciseness, semantic meaning, or documentation. 1 point: The code is poorly written and lacks adequate documentation or explanation. 0 points: The code is missing or entirely unclear.
4 points: The notebook is well-formatted and visually appealing, with a logical flow. Text and figures are clear, well-integrated, and free of spelling or grammatical errors. 3 points: The notebook is mostly well-formatted and clear, with minor issues in integration, spelling, or grammar. 2 points: The notebook has significant formatting or clarity issues but still conveys the analysis. 1 point: The notebook is poorly formatted or unclear, making it difficult to understand the analysis. 0 points: The notebook is missing or completely unclear.
4 points: The student demonstrates a strong understanding of GitHub by using branches, pull requests, and commits effectively. The commit history is clear and shows regular progress. 3 points: The student demonstrates a good understanding of GitHub, with minor issues in the use of branches, pull requests, or commit history. 2 points: The student demonstrates a basic understanding of GitHub, with significant issues in the use of branches, pull requests, or commit history. 1 point: The student shows minimal understanding of GitHub, with major issues in the use of branches, pull requests, or commit history. 0 points: The student does not demonstrate any understanding of GitHub usage.