Workflow+Software

__**TEAM A**__

 * Content** - There is a lot of information throughout all of the projects, but when summarizing the data, combine the ideas, don't separate them. The content is described well and is relevant to the topic. The discussion is good in some groups, but in others, they could say what they put up or a website other people in their group could go to. The images are placed in appropriate places and are relevant to the subject. The information layout is good because the projects talk about different examples, and then it has a summary. The collaboration is good because in the discussion, the people talked about what they were putting on the wiki. The information that was provided was good. The sounding board members for group 3 liked the fact that you had good citations of many words and also had website links to back up the information and if anybody was questioning something on the information provided.


 * Communication** - There was a lot of good discussion in the discussion tab. We noticed that the other people in the groups were helping out their fellow participants with ideas and other help on making their wiki and information better. When other people in other groups needed help others in this topic were quick to respond most of the time with good information and or help. Overall this group did a nice job communicating.


 * Collaboration** - The collaboration on the wiki discussion tab was good and helped organize their information well. On most sections the work seemed to be done by all of the members and they collaborated in they're work. two of the sections on the wiki were not completed or even touched on.


 * Presentation** - The wiki was presented well and looked consistant in font and structure. The graphics in the wiki were placed so that they do not disrupt of information but they're placement could be more engaging. The graphics also fit well with the written portion and represented it well visually.

We as the sounding boards of this wiki and group we are proud to announce that this group received a **25/30.** Relevant comments: 3/5 Knowledge/Comprehension questions: 5/5 Good Citizenship: 5/5 Assignment Criteria: 4/5 Grammar and Spelling: 4/5 Clarity of Written Expression: 4/5

__TEAM B__

 * Content -** A few good things about your Wiki, is that the sources from the websites you used are properly listed in the sources section of the page. There are many paragraphs of good information throughout the page, except for the C) Education section, which doesn't have anything written yet. I'd suggest talking to your teammates about who will start posting about education, and show each other what you'll be adding. Make sure they see the finished product!


 * Communication -** From what I've seen so far, there really doesn't seem to be a lot of group communication in the Discussion forum, except for about one or two people saying what they're going to post. Since talking between your group is a critical part of the project, the people who are already communicating should try persuading your other teammates to talk in the forum and start posting on the Wiki.


 * Collaboration -** There's a lot of content written from different people, so it seems like each one of you is doing your part in the project. But due to the little discussion in the forum, I don't see much collaborating going on. My advice would be to try talking to each other more about your topic, such as comparing your information, talking about what sections you'll be posting in, and show them any images or videos that you'll be posting. Most of all, don't be afraid to ask your teammates questions if you have any.


 * Wiki Presentation -** Your wiki page has lots of good information written about Workflow Software. But I think the page would look a lot neater if you used only one font and the same text size for the whole page, instead of a different one every other paragraph. Also, try adding images, links, videos, anything else you can add to help present your project. Other than that, there's a lot of good information written, and it looks like most of you are doing you're part.

Relevant comments - 3/5 Knowledge/Comprehension - 4/5 Good Citizenship - 2/5 Assignment Criteria - 4/5 Grammar and Spelling - 3/5 Clarity of Written Expression - 4/5


 * Overall Wiki Rating -** 20/30 points

__**Content:**__ Most of the content present in this Wiki presented a lot of new information I did not know before about Workflow Software. It was also present that most of/all of the team members of a certain sub-topic added content so that the quantity of it was very high. I would also suggest that the team members of sub-topic C and F actually add some information. No information was present in either of those. I would also suggest that sub-topic E add more content so the quantity could be very high as well. It looks like one person edited that certain section and nobody else added anything. Overall, the content was very good and the clarity was clear as well, especially the "Current News" sub-topic. The current news of Workflow Software gave me a basic idea of what is going on with the concept of it.

__**Communication:**__ The communication presented throughout the Wiki editing process was relevant and shown. I would especially give a shout out to team 3A, who actually had multiple threads up(which is not good), but it shows that communication between the team members was very good, and updates and information were shared. As for other communication, groups B and D had forms of communication involved, which was fantastic. The only groups who did not have communication involved were groups C, E, and F. Even though there was information present in sub-topic E, C and F did not have any information present, so it was obvious that there was no communication.


 * __Collaboration:__** The collaboration throughout the editing process of the Wiki looked very successful. The uses of different fonts and text sizes looked like different members of a sub-topic were all successful in editing and contributing. Little discussion was shown though. More discussion would've proved collaboration was 100% effective in the Wiki editing process.


 * __Wiki Presentation:__** Even though the different uses of text showed that collaboration in the Wiki editing process was successful, the page could have looked a lot neater. The different uses of text was okay, although all the font sizes could have been the same. It would have also been good to see visuals and graphics throughout the Wiki page. The content was written very well however.


 * Overall Wiki Rating:** 20/30 points