Final Draft Comments Team B.
Grade: 95/100. Great work!

Introduction: 17/20. 

Good, but still a bit informal in tone (e.g. "We're curious to know…"
-- how often do you see contractions in scientific writing?) Also, you
don't summarize or even tease your results at all (as the grading
guidelines
(cf. http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~brian/303/week14/0-final-paper-evaluation.txt)
ask you to in your introduction.

Methods: 20/20. 

Very strong. If anything, some of the more technical details (e.g. the
table of post-stratification weights) could have been relegated to the
appendix, but this is more a matter of taste than anything else.

Results: 18/20. 

Very strong in terms of work and content if stylistically wanting. As
we've discussed already, the difference between the jackknife and
Taylor series estimates of variance are quite troubling, given that
the weights didn't deviate too heavily from uniform, but Prof. Junker
and I couldn't find anything you were doing wrong to calculate them.

Again, the tone is frustratingly informal, affecting even the section
headings and the (unnecessary) explanation of how to read a fourfold
plot ("The way you read a fourfolds plot is that…"). Would you ever
see that in an academic publication?

Discussion: 20/20. 

Very strong.

References: 10/10. 

Appendices: 10/10. 

P.S. For an invaluable discussion of Internet intellectual property,
see
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nytimescoms-plan-to-charge-people-money-for-consum,19847/,
especially as it references the
"everything-online-should-be-free-for-reasons-nobody-can-really-explain-based
model".