60-Second Poster Evaluation

By George Hess – NC State University – Forestry Department

Rating Criteria – Circle rating that applies.

Overall Appearance

0 Cluttered or sloppy appearance. Gives the impression of a solid mass of text and graphics, or pieces are scattered and disconnected. Little white space.
1 Pleasant to look at. Pleasing use of colors, text, and graphics.
2 Very pleasing to look at. Particularly nice colors and graphics.

White Space

0 Very little. Gives the impression of a solid mass of text and graphics.
1 OK. Sections of the poster are separated from one another.
2 Lots. Plenty of room to rest the eyes. Lots of separation.

Text / Graphics Balance

0 Too much text. The poster gives an overwhelming impression of text only. OR Not enough text. Cannot understand what the graphics are supposed to relate.
1 Balanced. Text and graphics are evenly dispersed in the poster. There seems to be enough text to explain the graphics.

Text Size

0 Too small to view comfortably from a distance of 1-1.5 meters.
0.5 Main text OK, but text in figures too small.
1 Easy to read from 1-1.5 meters.
2 Very easy to read.

Organization and Flow

0 Cannot figure out how to move through poster.
1 Implicit. Headings (Introduction, Methods, etc) or other device implies organization and flow.
2 Explicit numbering, column bars, row bars, etc.

Author Identification

0 None.
1 Partial. Not enough information to contact author without further research. This includes missing zip codes on addresses.
2 Complete. Enough information to contact author by mail, phone, or e-mail without further research.

Research Objective

0 Can’t find.
1 Present, but not explicit. Buried at end of “Introduction”, “Background”, etc.
2 Explicit. This includes headings of “Objectives”, “Aims”, “Goals”, etc.

Main Points

0 Can’t find.
1 Present, but not obvious. May be imbedded in monolithic blocks of text.
2 Explicitly labeled (e.g., “Main Points”, “Conclusions”, “Results”).


0 Absent.
1 “Summary”, “Results”, or “Conclusions” section present.