General Criteria for Visualizations

While there is no specific rubric, here is a basic outline of how visualizations are assessed

Criteria/Benchmarks	Overall Failing	Generally Unsatisfactory	Needs improvement	Meets expectations	Exceeds expectations
Introduction	Introduction is not attepted or is incorrect	Introduction has multiple major flaws creating variables/data frames that mostly do not address the task	Introduction has a major flaw such as using variables not relevant to the visualization	Introduction has minor flaws such as being somewhat wordy not straight to the point	Introduction proviodes a clear explanation of the intent and the dataset used to address a given task
Justification of approach	Justification is not attepted or is incorrect	Justification of approach has multiple major flaws that affect the outcome	Justification of approach has one major flaw such as having a rendered visualization is not justified or is incorrectly defined	Justification has minor flaws such as being somewhat wordy not straight to the point	The chosen analysis approach and visualizations are clearly explained and justified
Code	Code is not attepted or is incorrect	Code has major flaws which lead to errors	Code has minor flaws, is difficult to follow, or includes lines or chunks that are unnecessary possibly leading to errors	Code is correct and runs without errors, but has minor problems with formatting or explanations	Code is correct, easy to read, properly formatted, runs without errors and properly explained
Visualization	Visualziation(s) are not attepted or are incorrect	At least one visualization has major flaws resulting in a barely comprehensible or entirely inappropriate rendering	At least one visualization has substantial flaw with legibility, labeling or rendering	The visualizations have minor flaw such as those with legibility, labeling, or the chosen geom is adequate but incurs data loss	The visualizations are appropriate, easy to read, properly labeled and utilize correct aesthetics
Outcomes	Explanation is not attepted or is incorrect	Explanation has at least one major flaw in logic affecting the outcome in a substantial way	Explanation has a secondary flaw in logic that does not affect the outcome in a substantial way	Explanation is mostly clear and correct, but has minor inaccuracies or lacks needed depth	Discussion of results is clear and correct with needed needed depth devoid of being wordy
Reproducibility	Ensuring reproducibility is not attepted	Ensuring reproducibility is not attepted	`.R`, `.Rmd`, or `.twbx` requires major modification to knit or compile without issues, or is not provided	`.R`, `.Rmd`, or `.twbx` requires minor modification to knit or compile without issues, or key datafile is missing	All required files except the resulting pdf/html are provided. `.R`, `.Rmd`, or `.twbx` file knits or compiles without issues and produces a pdf/html
Presentation	Presentation is not attepted or is unintelligible	Presentation is near impossible to comprehend	Presenation has several deficiencies such as excessive the need for additional materials, misplaced figures, code, or text, or is otherwise confusing	Presentation is mostly well structured, but some aspects are confusing or difficult to follow	Entire presentation is well structured and easy to follow without the use of additioinal Entire document is well structured and easy to follow. No extraneous materials