Group 20: clevercloud (Python)

[Arushi282]

---

Submitting Author: Arushi Ahuja @Arushi282, Amelia Tang @aimee0317, Victor Francis @Vikiano, Adrianne Leung @adrianne-l Package Name: clevercloud One-Line Description of Package: Creating meaningful and customized word clouds Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/clevercloud Version submitted: v1.1.0 Editor: Arushi Ahuja @Arushi282, Amelia Tang @aimee0317, Victor Francis @Vikiano, Adrianne Leung @adrianne-l Reviewer 1: Mukund Iyer @miyer26 Reviewer 2: Hatef Rahmani @hatefr Reviewer 3: Arijeet CHATTERJEE @arijc76 Reviewer 4: John Lee @johnwslee

---

Description

• Include a brief paragraph describing what your package does: This package is developed to serve as the one-step solution to create meaningful and visually appealing word clouds. To create meaningful word clouds, data scientists typically takes multiple steps to clean the data, such as removing stopwords, removing punctuation and digits, making the letters lower cases, conducting lemmatization and stemming. This package will help data scientists clean the data easily following the common practices and also allow to a meaningful word cloud with customized stopwords.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories this package falls under:
  • [ ] Data retrieval
  • [x] Data extraction
  • [ ] Data munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Reproducibility
  • [ ] Geospatial
  • [ ] Education
  • [x] Data visualization*

* Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package. For more info, see notes on categories of our guidebook.

• Explain how the and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences):

The package extracts the frequency of words and displays them in a word cloud image that is easy to interpret.

• Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package?

People who need to do basic visualization for Natural Language Processing (NLP).

• Are there other Python packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ?

WordCloud: a word count generator that emphasis more frequently used words from an array of strings and represents them in the form of an image.

What we do differently: (1) Our aim is to improve on the pre-processing of strings before creating a wordcloud in order to make it more user specific and efficient. (2) Word cloud only eliminates limited amount of stopwords, but with our package we are giving users the opportunity to add more stopwords that cater to their analysis. (3) We are focused on removing as many redundant and duplicate words by setting strings to lower case, removing punctuation, lemmatizing and stemming the text.

• If you made a pre-submission enquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted:

Technical checks

For details about the pyOpenSci packaging requirements, see our packaging guide. Confirm each of the following by checking the box. This package:

• [x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
• [x] has an OSI approved license.
• [x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
• [x] includes documentation with examples for all functions.
• [x] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• [x] has a test suite.
• [x] has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.

Publication options

• [ ] Do you wish to automatically submit to the Journal of Open Source Software? If so:

JOSS Checks

- [ ] The package has an **obvious research application** according to JOSS's definition in their [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]. Be aware that completing the pyOpenSci review process **does not** guarantee acceptance to JOSS. Be sure to read their submission requirements (linked above) if you are interested in submitting to JOSS. - [ ] The package is not a "minor utility" as defined by JOSS's [submission requirements][JossSubmissionRequirements]: "Minor ‘utility’ packages, including ‘thin’ API clients, are not acceptable." pyOpenSci welcomes these packages under "Data Retrieval", but JOSS has slightly different criteria. - [ ] The package contains a `paper.md` matching [JOSS's requirements][JossPaperRequirements] with a high-level description in the package root or in `inst/`. - [ ] The package is deposited in a long-term repository with the DOI: *Note: Do not submit your package separately to JOSS*

Are you OK with Reviewers Submitting Issues and/or pull requests to your Repo Directly?

This option will allow reviewers to open smaller issues that can then be linked to PR's rather than submitting a more dense text based review. It will also allow you to demonstrate addressing the issue via PR links.

• [x] Yes I am OK with reviewers submitting requested changes as issues to my repo. Reviewers will then link to the issues in their submitted review.

Code of conduct

• [ ] I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package should it be accepted.

P.S. *Have feedback/comments about our review process? Leave a comment here

Editor and Review Templates

Editor and review templates can be found here

[johnwslee]

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
• [x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
• [x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• [x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
• [x] Examples for all user-facing functions
• [x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [ ] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [x] The package name
• [x] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
• [x] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
• [x] Installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
• [x] Brief demonstration usage
• [x] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
• [x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

• [x] The documentation is easy to find and understand
• [x] The need for the package is clear
• [x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

Functionality

• [ ] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [ ] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [ ] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Automated tests: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• [ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [ ] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5 hours

---

Review Comments

1. I tried to install your package with pip install clevercloud as guided in README. However, while I was installing it, errors occurred and I couldn't install it. The error message was " ERROR: Failed building wheel for wordcloud". It would be better to check one more time if there is any problem with installation procedure. Just FYI, I am using window, and I tried to install your package in a fresh new virtual environment.

2. All the functions are well documented, and the docstrings are easy to follow. I think it would be even better if you reinforce the CleverClean() and CleverLemStem() functions with a bit more tests in the function, so that it becomes more robust.

3. The information about the authors, such as email address, are not mentioned in README or other documents. The only place I could find the authors' info was the contributors section of the GitHub page. I think that the information about the authors are to be mentioned somewhere in the GitHub repo, as it is listed as one of the items in the reviewers' checklist.

4. I could not find the link to the "ReadtheDoc" website of your package. How about putting another badge for this?

5. Just one more item for minor modification. Near the badges in README, the sentence "A package created to try a GitHub Actions workflow!" is written twice.

6. Lastly, I remember that we had one optional question for wordcloud in one of either 571 or 573 labs. I really enjoyed doing it even though it was optional. I believe it would have been even more enjoyable if your package was available at that time. Thank you very much for coming up with a great package. :)

[arijeetchatterjee]

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
• [x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
• [x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• [x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
• [x] Examples for all user-facing functions
• [x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [ ] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [x] The package name
• [x] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
• [x] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
• [x] Installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
• [x] Brief demonstration usage
• [x] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
• [x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

• [x] The documentation is easy to find and understand
• [x] The need for the package is clear
• [x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Automated tests: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• [ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [ ] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

---

Review Comments

I was able to install your package following the instructions and I had no issues in checking the functionality of the package (Just FYI, I am using macOS). Overall I think this is a great package and the functionality developed for this package in a short space of time is really nice. I have mentioned my recommendations below, which are mostly minor changes, that I think could make this good package even better:

• There is no link to the Contributing.md file in the Contributing section of the README. Adding a link could be useful from a user perspective.
• Adding the resulting wordcloud image from the given example in the Usage section of the README would help to make a more visual impact.
• The function names could be done better by following the PEP8 guidelines.
• Also, the imports statements in the code could be done better by following the PEP8 guidelines.
• Adding the author contact details in the Code of Conduct.

Once again, I would like to reiterate, great job on developing this package. Thanks for coming up with this package.

[miyer26]

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [x] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
• [x] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
• [x] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• [x] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
• [x] Examples for all user-facing functions
• [x] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [x] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [x] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [x] The package name
• [x] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
• [x] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
• [x] Installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
• [x] Brief demonstration usage
• [x] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
• [x] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

• [x] The documentation is easy to find and understand
• [x] The need for the package is clear
• [x] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Automated tests: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• [ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [x] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

---

Review Comments

Great job on the package! Its functions are extremely useful and have been well executed! I had no issues running your package from a new environment on MacOS.

I have a few comments which you may find useful:

1. To supplement the usage section with an example output of running your functions, it will be useful to include a link to the rendered HTML hosted on ReadtheDocs.

2. It will be great to see the test coverage go higher than 90% in future versions of the package.

3. Perhaps it maybe useful to mention other packages that exist in the Python verse that focus on preprocessing the text and carry out lemmatization and stemming. That being said, I like the details provided to distinguish your package from the existing Wrodcloud package.

4. The description for the function of CleverStopwords in the README is a little confusing. The description can be reworded to read "A function that returns a list..." or something to that effect.

5. It would be cool to see some additional arguments in the CleverWordCloud function that allows the user to control the size of the output image and set a background color or color scheme.

6. There can be an additional test for the CleverWordCloud function that ensures that an output is produced by verifying its type and perhaps its dimensions.

As you can see, all these suggestions are only minor changes to the existing package which is already fantastic! I'm sure it will be fo great use in any future courses/capstone projects that deal with NLP! Great job everyone :)

[hatefr]

Package Review

Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below. Your review is not limited to these topics, as described in the reviewer guide

• [X] As the reviewer I confirm that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work (If you are unsure whether you are in conflict, please speak to your editor before starting your review).

Documentation

The package includes all the following forms of documentation:

• [X] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience in README
• [X] Installation instructions: for the development version of package and any non-standard dependencies in README
• [X] Vignette(s) demonstrating major functionality that runs successfully locally
• [X] Function Documentation: for all user-facing functions
• [X] Examples for all user-facing functions
• [X] Community guidelines including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING.
• [ ] Metadata including author(s), author e-mail(s), a url, and any other relevant metadata e.g., in a setup.py file or elsewhere.

Readme requirements The package meets the readme requirements below:

• [X] Package has a README.md file in the root directory.

The README should include, from top to bottom:

• [X] The package name
• [ ] Badges for continuous integration and test coverage, a repostatus.org badge, and any other badges. If the README has many more badges, you might want to consider using a table for badges: see this example. Such a table should be more wide than high. (Note that the badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)
• [X] Short description of goals of package, with descriptive links to all vignettes (rendered, i.e. readable, cf the documentation website section) unless the package is small and there’s only one vignette repeating the README.
• [X] Installation instructions
• [X] Any additional setup required (authentication tokens, etc)
• [X] Brief demonstration usage
• [X] Direction to more detailed documentation (e.g. your documentation files or website).
• [X] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages
• [X] Citation information

Usability

Reviewers are encouraged to submit suggestions (or pull requests) that will improve the usability of the package as a whole. Package structure should follow general community best-practices. In general please consider:

• [X] The documentation is easy to find and understand
• [X] The need for the package is clear
• [X] All functions have documentation and associated examples for use

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [X] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [X] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• [X] Automated tests: Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
• [X] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration, such as Travis CI, AppVeyor, CircleCI, and/or others.
• [X] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines.

For packages co-submitting to JOSS

• [ ] The package has an obvious research application according to JOSS's definition in their submission requirements.

Note: Be sure to check this carefully, as JOSS's submission requirements and scope differ from pyOpenSci's in terms of what types of packages are accepted.

The package contains a paper.md matching JOSS's requirements with:

• [ ] A short summary describing the high-level functionality of the software
• [ ] Authors: A list of authors with their affiliations
• [ ] A statement of need clearly stating problems the software is designed to solve and its target audience.
• [ ] References: with DOIs for all those that have one (e.g. papers, datasets, software).

Final approval (post-review)

• [ ] The author has responded to my review and made changes to my satisfaction. I recommend approving this package.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

---

Review Comments

I wish to congratulate authors for this well done package to create interesting word clouds. I think the package development is clear and maintainable and I had no problem installing your package on my mac. I only have some minor suggestions to further improve the package structure:

• In the usage in README, I would definitely put a sample of word cloud created with the input text. This would aid reader to clearly understand how the package output looks like.
• This may be a personal choice, but I also rather to have all the test functions into one single .py file. This way, if your packages was to grow, you could avoid many files.
• It seems like your CleverClean function also removes numbers other than punctuations. I would also clarify that in the README.
• Your CleverWordCloud has only one test, whereas it is recommended to have 3-5 tests for each function.
• I think it would be interesting to see the test coverage of your package by including the codecov badge.