Poster title:

Presenter:
Instructions to reviewer: Use these criteria to rate the poster presentation on a scale of 1-5 (1=stongly disagree; 3=neutral; 5=strongly agree).

Appropriateness
The poster presents the results of a process-based, mechanistic model rather than a statistical (curve-fitting) model.
Note well: If "No" the poster is not appropriate and the score for the poster is zero.
No Yes
Appearance 5 is strong
agreement
1. Display attracts viewer's attention. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Words are easy to read from an appropriate distance (3-5 feet). 1 2 3 4 5
3. Poster is well organized and easy to follow. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Graphics and other visuals enhance presentation. 1 2 3 4 5
5. The poster is neat and appealing to look at. 1 2 3 4 5
Content
6. Content is clear and easy to understand. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Purpose of model (question being addressed) is stated clearly. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I understand why someone might be interested in the model results. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Key simplifying assumptions are identified. 1 2 3 4 5
10. There is enough detail about methods (e.g., deriving rate equations and parameter values) for me to understand the model and results. 1 2 3 4 5
11. The approach taken is appropriate for the problem and technically sound. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Poster is free of unnecessary detail. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Conclusions are stated clearly. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Conclusions are supported by model results. 1 2 3 4 5
Presentation
15. Presenter's response to questions demonstrated knowledge of subject matter and project. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Overall, this was a really good poster presentation. 1 2 3 4 5

Other comments (use other side)