Serena-SHEN1011
commented
21 hours ago Thank you for your valuable feedback. I appreciate your positive comments on the visualizations, modelling, and paper structure. I will update the sketches, finish the appendices, and add more details to the model section. Additionally, I will expand the discussion of the results and revise the abstract to highlight the study's broader importance.
Summary: This paper examines the factors that incluence language comprehension in young children by using a Bayesian linear regression model based on Wordbank database. It aggregates recent data on key predictors such as age, production ability of language etc, showing the result that development foactors such as caregiver education, age and production ability of language is important predictors of young children's level of comprehension.
Strong Positive Points: Strong methods of visualization: Paper uses effective and various visualizations. Figure 1 used box plot, showing the distribution of comprehension among children. Figure 2 is ridgeline plot, showing comprehension scores for each age group. Every plots is clear and colorful, aligning with the purpose of analysis.
Modeling and Reproducibility: The authors utilize polling data from a reputable source (Wordbank), and the dataset appears well-documented. Data cleaning procedures are detailed and clear, enhancing the reproducibility. The choice of a linear model is a good choice given the need to estimate uncertainties in polling predictions.
Well-written and Structured Paper: Paper is well-organized, with a good flow from introduction to data analysis, model explanation, and results discussion. Each section is clearly labeled and cross-referenced. The paper is also well-written with concise and professional language.
Critical Improvements Needed: Updating sketches
Finishing up the appendices section for a complete essay
Add more details in Model part. There's only how model is like. Consider adding model assumption and model summary section to help reader better understand your model.
Suggestions for Improvement: Consider adding a catalogue to guide the reader instead of the paragraph. It would be easier to find the paragpraph the reader wanna read :)
While the table in results indicate a general insights on what model looks like, the paper does not delve into why this might be the case. Considering adding more analysis of the results and the discussion on implications of these findings. Talk more here:)
In Abstract, I suggest that adding one more sentence about why this matters in a higher level. Considering about the influence on the lack of children language comprehension.
Evaluation: R is appropriately cited: 1/1 Data are appropriately cited: 1/1 Class paper: 1/1 LLM usage is documented: 1/1 Title: 2/2 Author, date, and repo: 2/2 Abstract: 3/4 Introduction: 4/4 Estimand: 1/1 Data: 10/10 Measurement: 3/4 Model: 6/10 Results: 7/10 Discussion: 8/10 Prose: 6/6 Cross-referaences: 1/1 Captions: 2/2 Graphs/tables/etc: 4/4 Surveys, sampling, and observational data appendix (0/10 pts) Referencing (4/4 pts) Commits (2/2 pts) Sketches (0/2 pts) Simulation (4/4 pts) Tests (2/4 pts) Parquet (1/1 pts) Reproducible workflow (4/4 pts) Enhancements (4/4 pts) Miscellaneous (2/3 pts) Estimated overall mark: 102/126
Other Comments: Overall, paper is very well-structured and well-written, with effective modeling and strong visualizations. However, some detailed analysis needed to be done such as the model section and more discussion on the lateral part of the paper needed to be finished up such as appendices.