# Scoring rubric and guiding questions
Community Reviewers must consider each of the following points as they undertake their reviews:
* Assign a score between 1 and 5 for each criterion based on the scoring rubric below.
* For each of the three criteria, a score and rationale for your score must be provided.
* Each of the 3 sections should be considered and reviewed on its own merits. These sections are:
* Impact \~ Does the proposal have the potential to positively impact Cardano?
* Feasibility / Capability \~ Is the proposal feasible, and does the proposer have the capability to deliver the project successfully and manage Treasury funds properly?
* Resources / Value for money \~ Does the proposal represent good value for the treasury and community?
* Your rationale must explain the score you have given. The review may be removed if a rationale does not correspond with the score given.
* Any score without a rationale will be filtered out, and you will not be compensated.
* Your rationale should help the voters decide, so ensure your considerations, scores, and rationales are comprehensible.
* Consider and communicate what additional information or improvements the proposer could include in future funds.
* Be sure that you submit your review correctly.
Each of the three scored sections of a proposal (Impact, Feasibility, Value for Money) will be marked 1-5. Where \[1] = a very poor answer, and \[5] = a great answer.
1 star - VERY POOR ANSWER
2 stars - POOR ANSWER
3 stars - ACCEPTABLE ANSWER
4 stars - GOOD ANSWER
5 stars - GREAT ANSWER
The following are scoring examples and rationale for each of the 3 criteria.
