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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	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: _______________