1. Team 11 – Learning Manipulation of a Flashlight
2. Should this project be considered for the Best Project award? yes
3. Should this project be considered for the top 3 project awards? yes
4. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall organization/clarity
   of the project report? 8
5. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall project idea? 8
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the overall research
   contribution of the project idea, methodology and/or results?  8

The report is very well organized and is nicely written. Aside from a few typographical and grammatical errors the paper itself was well setup. The project was designed well enough to allow for the data to only be collected one time and to be prosseced afterword without the need to collect more data. The results were close to what was expected from the proposal. The authors of the paper admitted when they had to change something or when something happened that they couldn't necessarily explain. The results were organized nicely in the paper so that it was a nice lead up to it throughout the paper.

The idea to start with only one fixed direction for the head is one tha tI feel might detract from the actual papers value. It made it easier to complete the report and gather data, but is not a real world situation. Being that it is not a situation that would occur with the robot the simulation doesn't hold as much validity. Just because the datasets worked in this particular case doesn't suggest that it would work in a real time scenario with more than one head movement.

The project is very organized. Each person seems to have had a part in the project. The paper itself detailed the different things that were done and the type of code that was necessary. The results were pretty much the results that the team expected to get from the project. Using a flashlight instead of night vision or some other type of way for the robot to 'see' in the dark is something that makes them seem a little more 'human'. This is important because the design and psychological aspects of a robot are usually overlooked and it is important to allow people to feel more comfortable while working with them.

The project seemed to be a little bit rushed. It seems like the data collection and the processing were all done around the same time. This means that there wasn't enough time for them to cover all the ideas they setup to accomplish in the proposal. As much as the team seems to have all been invlolved in the design and implementation of this project, it doesn't seem that everyone had an equal load of things to do in the final report. There is too much pseudocode and it isn't so easily understood.

The details of the actual data collection(pictures or figures) are left out. They explain very well in words how they got the shapes was important and there is too much left unexplained outside the actual collection. 

The researchers have reached what they have called success. I believe that based on the goals set out in the proposal they were successful. 

The final paper would probably need to be rewritten in a different form using more explanation of their future work and applications sections. The pseudocode should be tuned down a little bit and made easier to read and follow through. Using a better description of why this type of idea could be useful would get the reader a little more interested in the paper itself. In the conclusion it should be reiterated, the reason that this particular research is useful.