Notes

[hari-lr]

Hi Francesca! Here are my notes on your Analysis of DineSafe Infractions and Inspections in Toronto Canada.

[hari-lr]

The abstract is well-written and complete. You summarize what the paper is about and the findings. However, I would suggest adding a little bit of context (maybe a sentence or two in the beginning) and also one or two sentences summarizing the discussion.

Here are some grammar changes I would make.

abstract: "This report analyzes the amount of DineSafe infractions by severity level , in addition as well as to the number of establishments by DineSafe status and the frequency of inspections." In order to To gain an idea of the statistics of DineSafe better understand the landscape of the DineSafe program, bar graphs were created in order to visualize to illustrate the DineSafe status of establishments, the minimum amount of inspections per year for an individual establishment, and the frequency of DineSafe infractions by severity awarded. Based off Based on the graphs created, establishments are generally more likely to be subject to undergo 2-3 inspections per year.and a majority of infractions are of minor severity. Furthermore, the majority of infractions are classified as minor in severity. This might relate to the signficantly significantly higher amount of DineSafe pass statuses in comparison compared to condition pass statuses."

[hari-lr]

The introduction is also very complete. You explain what the Dine Safe program is, how it works, what aspects that you will be focusing on, and the tools/methods you use. You also mention that there are other methods of infractions, and it would be helpful if you exemplify one. Here are some grammar changes I would make.

DineSafe is Toronto Public Health's food safety program which primarily inspects establishments that serve and prepare food prepare and serve food. After an inspection, establishments are given a pass, conditional pass, or closed status; After inspections, establishments are also given infractions of varying severity levels that are recorded. Depending on the severity level, infractions are corrected on-site, with a fine or another method. This particular report examines the DineSafe status of establishments, the minimum amount of inspections per year for an individual establishment, and the frequency of DineSafe infractions by severity awarded. This data was imported into Posit Cloud where the R statistical programming language [@citeR] was used in addition to the janitor [@janitor], tidyverse [@tidyverse], and dplyr [@dplyr] packages for cleaning. Bar graphs were created based on the cleaned data.

[hari-lr]

The data description is nice and concise. You explain where you got the data from and what specific data you will be using. I would mention a couple of the other variables that you could get from the site. Here are some grammar changes I would make.

The data set that was selected for the purpose of this report's graphical analysis is a package data set entitled "Dinesafe" from Open Data Toronto by [@opensourcetoronto]. This data set includes 17 different variables including the minimum amount of inspections per year, infraction severity, and establishment DineSafe status. These three particular variables will be used to creates create the required graphs and are defined as follows: I would number this list

1. Severity (ascedning ascending order): Not Applicable, Minor, Significant, Crucial 2. Establishment Status: Pass, Conditional Pass, Closed 3. Minimum Amount of Inspections per Year: 1-3 inspections per year based on establishment type, food preparation processes, volume and type of food served, etc. Low risk Low-risk premises are noted as "O" in this data set as they only require 1 inspection eveyr every two years due to only selling pre-packaged non-hazardous food.

[hari-lr]

The graphs are well-described and analyzed. However, there is a consistent mistake throughout the description; you indicate in brackets (severity-graph?), and (establishment-status-graph?). I would cite this as (Figure 1), (Figure 2), and (Figure 3), respectively, so the reader can refer back to the specific graph. Also, for graph 1 (severity graph), I would explain in the description what N/A means. Lastly, I would recommend shortening the min_inspections_per_year name for the graph 3 (minimum amount of inspections per year) function. Here are some grammar changes I would make.

Figure 1: description The number of occurrences of each DineSafe infraction by severity level is visualized with a bar graph. Based on this graph, there are significantly less fewer crucial infractions levied to establishments in comparison to minor and significant infractions @severity-graph. Most infractions appear to be minor and according to this data set, are corrected with on-site verbal instruction. This could indicate that infractions are not severe enough to warrant a closed status at the end of an inspection.

Figure 3: description The number of establishments with a pass or conditional pass status are is visualized with a bar graph. Based on the graph created, almost all establishments are given a pass status @establishment-status-graph. There is also a small portion of establishments with a conditional pass status and none with a closed status. Comparing this graph to the infraction severity graph @severity-graph, these results could strongly imply that most establishments meet the standards set out by Public Health Toronto since infractions are generally minor and most establishments have a pass status.

Figure 3: description The number of establishments that are subject to each minimum inspection amount per year value are is visualized with a bar graph. From viewing this graph, significantly fewer amounts of establishments are subject to 1 inspection per year or 1 inspection every two years @min-inspections-graph. Since most establishments are subject to multiple inspections per year (2-3), this could imply they are more likely to adhere to Toronto Public Health guidelines due to rigorous inspection practices.

[hari-lr]

In your discussion, you highlight an interesting correlation between the number of minimum inspections and the pass statuses. However, at the beginning of the paragraph, I would add a sentence summarizing what you did and your main findings.

Here are some grammar changes I would make.

Based on the graphs created from the "Dinesafe" data set taken from Open Source Toronto @opendatatoronto, it is possible that there is there may be a correlation between the minimum amount of inspections establishments are subject to and the amount number of pass stauses statuses for establishments. This could possibly be due to more inspections per year resulting in better adherence to Toronto Public Health standards which contribute to a majority of establishments being given pass status. This could also be further corroborated by the frequency of each infraction severity level. As most infractions are minor and with few crucial infractions, this also highlights how guidelines not being met are easily rectified. Infractions being mostly minor could also imply that across Toronto, establishments are operating at standards similar to those set out by Toronto Public Health.

[hari-lr]

Other comments:

• I would add comments to the code, sometimes the code is hard to follow. Maybe you do not need to add comments for each line but a title for the main functions would be useful. This would enhance reproducibility.
• I would scale the graphs because some of the numbers are very small and hard to see.
• I would add a clean data file in the output section. Just in case.
• In the description of key terms it could be useful to cite @opendatatoronto again.
• There is an extra page in the pdf that you might like to delete. Overall, I think you did a good job.