About

You will be assigned reviews of group projects drafts for two peers. Reviews will be assigned through Canvas by 7pm on Friday November 13.

For each review, you will comment on the project’s tutorial and the example(s) for which the specific group member you are assigned has primary responsibility.

Please remember to be respectful and constructive in your comments. The purpose of peer review is twofold:

Responsibilities

As a peer-reviewer, you are responsible for reviewing the following areas:

  1. core example(s) for the group member you were assigned;
  2. sections common to all group members: introduction, any extended examples, and the conclusion or discussion;
  3. git utilization;
  4. professionalism and quality of the presentation.

It is helpful if you briefly compare to another group member to verify that the core examples are parallel with differences clearly explained and justified.

Please review both the write up and the source code.

In reviewing the code used for the analyses (1) please follow the existing peer review guidelines.

A rule-of-thumb for the expected effort of these peer review is that you spend ~15-30 minutes on each of your two reviews.

Additional guidelines

Below are some additional guidelines on structuring your peer review.

Core Example

Here, it would be helpful to address:

  1. Is there opening text making it clear what to expect in the example?
  2. Are key packages/libraries/commands introduced prior to being used?
  3. Is the parallel structure between examples easily identified with deviations explained?
  4. Are the examples accurate?

Common Sections

Here, it would be helpful to address:

  1. Does the tutorial contain the required sections?
  2. Does the introduction motivate the tutorial?
  3. Is the source of the data used in examples clear and adequately described?
  4. Is the writing style clear and concise? Please highlight any areas you find confusing or difficult to follow.

Git Utilization

Here, it would be helpful to address:

  1. Is there a README that describes the project and the relation between files? Are source files documented in the README?
  2. Are all source files present and organized in a helpful way?
  3. Is there evidence of multiple commits per member and some form of code reviews?

As a group, you may wish to explain in the README your evidence of code reviews and collaboration.

Quality of presentation

Here, it would be helpful to address:

  1. Is the tutorial as a whole easy to follow and navigate?
  2. Does the tutorial have a professional appearance?
    • Do snake_case or other coding conventions appear in titles, figure axes, or other places they don’t belong?
    • Do any figures or tables have brief explanatory captions?

Style

Referring to the source files, are there aspects of the style guide that could be improved?

Nitpicks

Here are a few things I will nitpick for points, please help your peers avoid them.

  1. Source scripts: missing headers or header information, inadequate comments, and inconsistent styling.

  2. Inadequate or unclear evidence of collaboration using git.

  3. Presentation quality:

    • excessive decimals or other lack of attention to formatting,
    • lack of a clear parallel structure in the core examples without an adequate explanation of why.