Group 20: clevercloudr (R)

name: clevercloudr about: Creating meaningful and customized word clouds

Submitting Author Names: Arushi Ahuja @Arushi282, Amelia Tang @aimee0317, Victor Francis @Vikiano, Adrianne Leung @adrianne-l Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/clevercloudr Version submitted: v1.0.1 Submission type: Standard Editors: Arushi Ahuja @Arushi282, Amelia Tang @aimee0317, Victor Francis @Vikiano, Adrianne Leung @adrianne-l Reviewers: Mukund Iyer @miyer26, Hatef Rahmani @hatefr, Arijeet CHATTERJEE @arijc76, John Lee @johnwslee Language: R

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: clevercloudr
Title: Creating Meaningful and Visually Appealing Word Clouds!
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R: 
  c(person(given = "Victor",
           family = "Francis",
           role = c("aut", "cre"),
           email = "francisvictorvictor47@gmail.com"),
    person(given = "Amelia",
           family = "Tang",
           role = "ctb",
           email = "aimee.tv21@gmail.com"),
    person(given = "Adrianne",
           family = "Leung",
           role = "ctb",
           email = "adrianne.l.wk@gmail.com"),
    person(given = "Arushi",
           family = "Ahuja",
           role = "ctb",
           email = "arushiahuja28@gmail.com"))
Description: 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 create more visually appealing word clouds in relevant shapes.
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.1.2
Config/testthat/edition: 3
Imports: 
    corpus,
    dplyr,
    htmlwidgets,
    RColorBrewer,
    stopwords,
    stringr,
    testthat,
    tm,
    usethis,
    vecsets,
    webshot,
    wordcloud,
    wordcloud2

Scope

Please indicate which category or categories from our package fit policies this package falls under: (Please check an appropriate box below. If you are unsure, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry.):
- [ ] data retrieval
- [x] data extraction
- [ ] data munging
- [ ] data deposition
- [ ] workflow automation
- [ ] version control
- [ ] citation management and bibliometrics
- [ ] scientific software wrappers
- [ ] field and lab reproducibility tools
- [ ] database software bindings
- [ ] geospatial data
- [x] text analysis
Explain how 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 R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category?

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 applicable) Does your package comply with our guidance around Ethics, Data Privacy and Human Subjects Research?
If you made a pre-submission inquiry, please paste the link to the corresponding issue, forum post, or other discussion, or @tag the editor you contacted.
Explain reasons for any pkgcheck items which your package is unable to pass.

Technical checks

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

[x] I have read the guide for authors and rOpenSci packaging guide.

This package:

[x] does not violate the Terms of Service of any service it interacts with.
[x] has a CRAN and OSI accepted license.
[x] contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
[x] includes documentation with examples for all functions, created with roxygen2.
[x] contains a vignette with examples of its essential functions and uses.
[x] has a test suite.
[x] has continuous integration, including reporting of test coverage using services such as Travis CI, Coveralls and/or CodeCov.

Publication options

[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on CRAN?
[ ] Do you intend for this package to go on Bioconductor?
[ ] Do you wish to submit an Applications Article about your package to Methods in Ecology and Evolution? If so:

MEE Options

- [ ] The package is novel and will be of interest to the broad readership of the journal. - [ ] The manuscript describing the package is no longer than 3000 words. - [ ] You intend to archive the code for the package in a long-term repository which meets the requirements of the journal (see [MEE's Policy on Publishing Code](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/journal-resources/policy-on-publishing-code.html)) - (*Scope: Do consider MEE's [Aims and Scope](http://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)2041-210X/aims-and-scope/read-full-aims-and-scope.html) for your manuscript. We make no guarantee that your manuscript will be within MEE scope.*) - (*Although not required, we strongly recommend having a full manuscript prepared when you submit here.*) - (*Please do not submit your package separately to Methods in Ecology and Evolution*)

Code of conduct

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

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1.5 hrs

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Installation guide was simple and easy to follow. Installation was successful without any difficulties. The example code in README was very helpful for me to check the functionality of your package.
The function codes are well written and well documented. Like the case of python package, addition of more codes for testing would increase the robustness of the package.
The badges in the README are really helpful for others to quickly find out the status of the package and the repo. It is great that the code coverage is higher than 90%.
I am just wondering why JavaScript is being displayed as the mostly used language in your GitHub repo. You can find the languages section in the righthand side of your GitHub repo.
I would be better to clean up the To do lists from the project board. Overall, your package and repo looks great.

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

[ ] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

I installed the package without any issues and I could follow the example as provided in the README. The functionality of the package looks great. I have mentioned my observations below:

The code is well written and documented.
There are sufficient tests for each function.
I think there could be a link to the contributing guidelines in the README.
I could not find the contact details of the authors of the package. I think this would be nice to add.

From the code and functionality perspective, I don't think I can suggest any improvements that are required in this package at this stage. Once again, a great job on developing this package.

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[X] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[X] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[X] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

[X] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

I was able to successfully install the package without any issues. In general, the package looks great and is very useful. I only have some minor suggestions to further improve the package:

I could not find the link of your website in README file, I suggest to update README and include a link to your website
I would also use comments in the functions to make the code easier to understand. I had difficulties understanding what each function does in the current format.
It would be also useful to add a test to raise an error should the user uses a wrong input (not text document).
Well done on the vignettes. The site looks very clean and easy to understand
I would also add more output examples to the README file to show the user what to expect from this package

Overall it is a very awesome package, and great work Group 20!

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

Briefly describe any working relationship you have (had) with the package authors.
[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 exported functions
[x] Examples: (that run successfully locally) for all exported functions
[x] Community guidelines: including contribution guidelines in the README or CONTRIBUTING, and DESCRIPTION with URL, BugReports and Maintainer (which may be autogenerated via Authors@R).

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: Unit tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions. All tests pass on the local machine.
[x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing: 1 hour

[x] Should the author(s) deem it appropriate, I agree to be acknowledged as a package reviewer ("rev" role) in the package DESCRIPTION file.

Review Comments

Great work on this package! I had no issues installing it and running the example provided under the usage section. Please find below some comments that maybe useful for further development:

1) I see that the CONTRIBUTING file is missing from the root directory. It will be useful to have, and link this to the Contributing section in the README.

2) It will be nice to see the rendered page of the package documentation including the vignette linked on the README.

3) The LICENSE.md file does not list the name of the authors explicitly.

4) The fit within the R ecosystem is well explained. However, other packages that carry out text processing can be mentioned as they are also similar to some of the functions included in this package.

5) The worldcloud2 files are currently under the test folder - perhaps it would make more sense for it to reside under the src folder?

All in all this package provides fantastic utility so kudos to all of you!

UBC-MDS / software-review-2022