Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	001ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Zorro’s Ghost: How a Mexican Legend Became America’s First Superhero	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Stephen Andes	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	002ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Qualifications Count: Why Women Must be Better than Men to Win Political Office	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Nichole Bauer	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	003ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Green Screens: Industrial Landscapes and the Environment in Twenty-First Century Italian Ecodocumentary	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Paolo Chirumbolo	
Amount Requested	$48,207	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	004ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Terra In/Cognita: Mapping the New United States	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Lauren Coats	
Amount Requested	$37,361	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	005ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	A Place for People: Society and Culture on Louisiana’s Fragile Coast	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Craig Colten	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	006ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Towards a Rich Theatre: Technology, Reperformability, and The Wooster Group	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Serap Erincin	
Amount Requested	$49,390	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	007ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	Rehearsal for Extinct Anatomies	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Lara Glenum	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	008ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Gender Relations and Nation in Sofia Casanova’s Writings from Poland [1913-1933]	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Dorota Heneghan	
Amount Requested	$46,437	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	009ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Beneath Heavy Pines: Louisiana, Camp Livingston, and Japanese Enemy Alien Internment	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Hayley Johnson	
Amount Requested	$41,684	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	010ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Sex Under Necropolitics	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Benjamin Kahan	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	011ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Critical Race Theory and Science Fiction	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Isiah Lavender III	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	012ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Beginning and Decadence of the Modern Individual	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Alexandre Leupin	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	013ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	HIYA DOLLY: A Science Play about Dolly the Sheep	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Vince LiCata	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	014ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Motherhood in Modernity: Twenty-First Century Hegemonic Motherhood in the United States	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Ashley Noel Mack	
Amount Requested	$47,496	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	015ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	“The Idea of the Negro”: Debating Black Protest Fiction after the Harlem Renaissance	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Bryan McCann	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	016ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Dominican and Cuban Im/mobilities in Contemporary Literature and Film: A New Ethics of Encounter	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Andrea Morris	
Amount Requested	$23,459	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	017ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Modern Pupillometry: Cognition, Neuroscience, and Practical Applications	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Megan Papesh	
Amount Requested	$28,827	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	018ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Support for book project: ‘Human Nature: Between Philosophy and Anthropology’	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/John Protevi	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

 Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	019ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Postcolonial Disaster: Narrating Catastrophe in the Twenty-First Century	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Pallavi Rastogi	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	020ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	A Documentary History of Jewish Life in Modern Hungary	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Maria Rethelyi	
Amount Requested	$49,980	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	021ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	The Pay-For: A Multimedia Rhetorical History of Modern Monetary Theory	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/William Saas	
Amount Requested	$48,068	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	022ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	From Protest to Propaganda: The Americanization of The War of the Worlds	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Charles Shindo	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	023ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Acquiring Word Prosody in Second Language Learning	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Irina Shport	
Amount Requested	$23,376	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	024ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Publication of an Online Database of Colonial Maps for the Analysis of Social and Environmental Change in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Andrew Sluyter	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	025ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	Flora Louisienne: A Wearable Art Exhibition	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Casey Stannard	
Amount Requested	$31,757	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	026ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	A Political Economy of Piracy and Maritime Crime	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Daniel Tirone	
Amount Requested	$49,994	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	027ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Dreaming in the Age of Reason: Sleep, Passions and Knowledge in Early Modern France	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Leslie Tuttle	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	028ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	Saw the Deep	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU A&M/Joshua Wheeler	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	029ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Ashes in the Gutter: Politics and Culture in Chile’s Post-Dictatorship Comics	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU Shreveport/Samuel Cannon	
Amount Requested	$14,726	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	030ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Global History of the Napoleonic Wars	
Submitting Institution/PI	LSU Shreveport/Alexander Mikaberidze	
Amount Requested	$6,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	031ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	America’s Worst Disease: The Killing of Yoshi Hattori and the Struggle for Gun Control	
Submitting Institution/PI	Louisiana Tech/Andrew McKevitt	
Amount Requested	$40,360	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	032ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Crime, Vengeance, and the City: How Crime Fiction and Film Narrates the Story of Contemporary Life in Latin America	
Submitting Institution/PI	Louisiana Tech/Gregory Schelonka	
Amount Requested	$37,028	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	033ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	View from the Piano Bench: The Arrangements of Johannes Brahms	
Submitting Institution/PI	Loyola/Valerie Goertzen	
Amount Requested	$28,884	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________ 

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	034ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	Researching, Designing and Producing Public Typographic Murals and Sculptures	
Submitting Institution/PI	Loyola/Daniela Marx	
Amount Requested	$42,598 (Budget amount incorrect on cover/budget pages)	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	035ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Southern Methodist Women, 1940-1990: Agents of Progressive Change	
Submitting Institution/PI	McNeese/Janet Allured	
Amount Requested	$30,685	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	036ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	What the Living Owe the Dead, a collection of poems	
Submitting Institution/PI	McNeese/Amy Fleury	
Amount Requested	$24,115	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	037ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Good Shoot, Bad Shoot?: A Legal and Ethical Analysis of Shootings by Law Enforcement	
Submitting Institution/PI	McNeese/Todd Furman	
Amount Requested	$49,982	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	038ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	From a Strange Land to a Strange Sea: A monograph with photos and text describing Explorations of the La Coast 2000-2018	
Submitting Institution/PI	Nicholls/Gary LaFleur, Jr. 	
Amount Requested	$13,269	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	039ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	Feast Days: Poems	
Submitting Institution/PI	Southeastern/Alison Pelegrin	
Amount Requested	$34,417	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________ 

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	040ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Organic Architectures: Forms of Belonging	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Adrian Anagnost	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	041ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Nature’s Clockwork: The Natural History of Time in British Literature of the Long Eighteenth Century	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Melissa Bailes	
Amount Requested	$49,280	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	042ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Historical Ecology of the Lower Amazon	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/William Balee	
Amount Requested	$49,999	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	043ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	‘The Land Beyond the River: Palestine in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods’	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Ryan Boehm	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	044ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	Treemonisha: a Musical	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Courtney Bryan	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	045ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	A LadyCaper Project	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Amy Chaffee	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	046ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Parental Migration Caretaking Arrangements and Children’s Wellbeing in Rural China	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Xiaojin Chen	
Amount Requested	$48,493	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	047ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Dictatorship and Information: Autocratic Regime Resilience in Communist Europe and China	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Martin Dimitrov	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	048ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	The Animated Conscience: Interiority and Mental Life in Animated Media	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Erick Herhuth	
Amount Requested	$49,939	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	049ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Psychologist: Reluctant Warrior in Care for the Seriously Ill	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Michael Hoerger	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	050ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Fidel Between the Lines: Paranoia and Ambivalence in Late Socialist Cuban Cinema	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Laura-Zoe Humphreys	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	051ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	The Making of an Ancient City: Materiality of Power and Identity at Teotihuacan	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Tatsuya Murakami	
Amount Requested	$44,074	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	052ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	The House of the Frescoes at Knossos	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Emilia Oddo	
Amount Requested	$49,050	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	053ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	The Liberalism Trap: John Stuart Mill and Our Crisis of Certainty	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Menaka Philips	
Amount Requested	$46,926	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	054ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	The First Viral Images: Maerten de Vos, Antwerp print, and the early modern globe	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Stephanie Porras	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	055ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	Peggy and Paul: The Politics of Identity	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/John Proctor	
Amount Requested	$49,906	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	056ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Friendship Across Religious Lines: Renaissance Jewish and Christian Kabbalists in Dialogue	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Gary Remer	
Amount Requested	$50,000	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	057ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Troubling Modernity	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Ana Sanchez-Rojo	
Amount Requested	$49,494	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	058ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	Gold Matters: Materializing Money in Vietnam at the End of the Twentieth Century	
Submitting Institution/PI	Tulane/Allison Truitt	
Amount Requested	$49,333	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	059ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	3D Character Rigging	
Submitting Institution/PI	UL Lafayette/Yeon Choi	
Amount Requested	$29,622	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	060ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Disintegrating Empire: Algerian Family Migration, Welfare, and Decolonization	
Submitting Institution/PI	UL Lafayette/Elise Franklin	
Amount Requested	$20,102	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	061ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Masculinity and Modernity in 19th-Century Russian Painting	
Submitting Institution/PI	UL Lafayette/Allison Leigh	
Amount Requested	$20,645	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	062ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Understanding Islam in France: Representations of Muslims in Contemporary French and Francophone Cinema	
Submitting Institution/PI	UL Lafayette/Ramona Mielusel	
Amount Requested	$23,885	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	063ATL-19 (Humanities)	
Proposal Title	Constructing the Woman Writer in England, 1670-1750	
Submitting Institution/PI	UL Lafayette/Leah Orr	
Amount Requested	$44,102	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	064ATL-19 (Social Sciences)	
Proposal Title	New Orleans Historical Live! Revitalizing a Local Register of Historic Places	
Submitting Institution/PI	UNO/Fallon Aidoo	
Amount Requested	$51,979*	
* Multiple-investigator projects permitted to request >$50,000

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	065ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	The Lime Works: an opera in two parts and three experiments	
Submitting Institution/PI	UNO/Yotam Haber	
Amount Requested	$37,464	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	066ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	The Big Door Prize	
Submitting Institution/PI	UNO/Milton Walsh	
Amount Requested	$40,438	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________

Merit Review Criteria for ATLAS Projects

Proposal Number	067ATL-19 (Creative Arts)	
Proposal Title	‘Preacher Man, Preacher Man,’ An original, historical, musical production	
Submitting Institution/PI	Xavier/Juliana Haynes	
Amount Requested	$50,000 (Cover page/budget page cite incorrect funding request)	

Instructions: Evaluators are asked to consider the following criteria in assessing applications and should provide commentary useful to additional reviewers and to the Board as final funding determinations are made, as well as to the applicant. After funding decisions are finalized, all applicants will receive reviewer comments as part of the debriefing process. If necessary, reviewers may submit additional pages of commentary. 

Project Summary: Principal concerns of the project and its intended audience(s)

Criterion 1: The significance of the project as described to its current field of study or art practice and to broader academic and/or lay audiences

Criterion 2: The strength of the proposal’s conceptualization, organization, and plans for project execution

Criterion 3: The quality of the applicant’s previous work and/or promise of quality based on the applicant’s preparations for the current project

Criterion 4: The feasibility of the proposed plan of work and likelihood that the applicant will complete the project within a limited timeframe

Recommendation for Funding: Indicate how strongly you would recommend this project for funding by the Board of Regents. If you believe the project should be funded, provide an analysis of the budget request. If cuts to the requested budget are suggested, indicate line item(s) to be cut and provide a total recommended funding amount. 

REVIEWER SIGNATURE: _______________________________		DATE: _______________