21071030 – #Agartus : Samvidhanam Krita-Vidya

4 thoughts on “21071030 – #Agartus : Samvidhanam Krita-Vidya”

1. 6

   1. I have found another team ConstitutionalChronicles have the same choice

   2. Presentation Review:
   2.1 Page 1: Update Team ID as per website; Reduce the spaces between label and value; update the proposal title in place of TITLE PAGE
   2.2 Page 2: Space is not utilized properly; Sections seems no organization, clumsy over each other; give a clear division of three sections; can reduce to one image and mention its reference in last slide; write a one liner about the proposal then inform via bullet points; Target people/users should be written clearly. To many bullet points gave an impression of pasting points into a place with poor cohesion, connect them and reduce the duplication of points; lines of the similar proposal matches some of yours, have a discussion and re write.
   2.3 Page 3: Django is a 3tier/ MVC framework, instead of mentioning html,css etc., you may mention and highlight it to add value to tech stack; Backend means data tier, you have separated it; instead of ‘Frontend Design’, ‘Backend’ etc., rename as modules which specifies your methodology/ planning; division of modules like gamification, Quizzes must be addressed seperatley or specifically into modules; image purpose not understood or felt less appropriate fr explanation, instead can draw a flow diagram of proposal
   2.4 Page 4: Feasibility is about idea, not about tech stack or methodology; did not discuss about viability much; re phrase some sentences like ‘Work with educators’ as ‘networking educators’ etc.,; involvement of experts is not clearly mentioned for content development; target users are not clearly mentioned in terms of the slide intent
   2.5 Page 5: highlight the points that contrast the description and highlight the intention of impact and benefit; avoid repetition of lines; it too heavy to read or focus on impact and benefits; usage of words like ‘Social Impact’, ‘ Progressive Society’ could be used to potray the impact of the proposal among the target users;
   2.6 Page 6: referencing is very poor; it seems to be a formal slide with no value or meaning added; justification for using Gen AI tools must be given somewhere in the presentation else presentation cold be under valued for blind automation/ reference.

   3. Idea Review:
   3.1 classification of proposal into games, quizzes etc., was good but mapping clearly/ highlighting to target audience like games for school students, quizzes for adults/ elderly would add a value and differentiate your proposal to many such;
   3.2 Identify the target people, day/ events where you can bring maximum impact through your proposal
   3.3 Give a mention about the existing apps/ solutions and their drawbacks or your enhancements
   3.4 Write a one liner that creates impact, need of addressing such a topic for the future of India

   4. Video Review:
   Video presentation was very mechanical, reflected a teleprompter mode. The explanation gives a dis view of how much the team has owned or dis interested in its development. It was a little slow and not engaging. A lot of attention is needed to improve presentation of proposal.

   Reply
   • 0

     sir and also I could find the content is directly copied from ai.
     i am not assuming it but we can check it through gptzero platform.
     don’t we need to consider factors like this

     Reply
     • 2

       not needed as of this round.

       Reply
2. 1

   Good. But too much information

   Reply