These are questions from SCAD's course units asked about the review:
What was the single most important factor in the success of your presentation?
In all honesty I have to say that without the direction to research literature that Professor Gilbert gave me I might not be on the left side of the questions. According to the review documentation I was excellent in the areas of "Relationship to career", "Concept Application", "Implementation", and "Direction". The only area I was below "Good" was an "Average" in "Presentation", in the comments it was clear that this was a typography issue. While I don't typically like excuses for lacking in an area, I have never taken a typography class, so my knowledge in that area is weak; no excuse, but I have been working on other areas that are more closely related to my current role.
What other factor(s) do you feel were strengths that gained positive responses from the review committee?
I have to imagine my work examples end product gained points. My research, organization and execution was pointed out as "Great- a pleasure to view"
Did any specific feedback from earlier peer reviews help you refine your presentation? If so, what specifically?
Sure, people were very unclear about my topic at first. Through many iterations I was able to get an understandable response from peer review.
Did you receive any positive comments from the review committee with regard to the balance of your visual and written thesis development? If so, what specifically?
I was actually suggested to try to make the connection stronger between the two, so I will be looking to do that.