-Positive IQP Points
  -Ted
    -Points were introduced well

  -John
    -Graphics, text interwoven very well
    -When the grammar was good, it was really good
    -Pretty much entirely relevant info
    -Points were discussed thoroughly
    -Lots of data for both drawing, supporting conclusions

  -Assel
    -Well-structured
    -Writing was accessible to wider audience
    -Tables supplemented text well
    -Lots of up-to-date data
    -Covered every aspect of their issue

  -All
    -Thorough discussion of issues
    -High writing quality
    -Adequate amounts of data
    -Use of graphics
    -Relevant information
    -Good introductions, transitions

-Negative IQP Points
  -Ted
    -Lack of smooth transitions
    -Jumpiness
    -Poor citations
    -Too few references
    -Lack of backing behind ideas: reader should be able to understand what's going on
    -Irrelevant information
    -No graphics
    -Repetitive arguments
    -Poor grammar

  -John
    -Inconsistent quality of grammar
    -Infrequent citation
    -Some graphics lack information

  -Assel
    -Used examples from cities that may not have been entirely relevant

  -All
    -Poor/infrequent citations
    -Not enough references
    -Lack of backing behind ideas
    -Low quality of writing
    -Irrelevant information
    -Few graphics or graphics that do not convey useful information
    -Lack of data