Group 15 - socceranalysisR

name: socceranalysisR about: Obtain summary statistics for a particular team, identify outliers based on market value, rank players by goals per game and display different plots.

Submitting Author Name: Flora Ouedraogo, Gaoxiang Wang, Manvir Kohli , Vincent Ho Submitting Author Github Handle: !--author1-->@florawendy19@louiewang820@manvirsingh96@vincentho32<!--end-author1-- Repository: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/socceranalysisR Version submitted: 0.2.0 Submission type: Standard Editor: Flora Ouedraogo, Gaoxiang Wang, Manvir Kohli , Vincent Ho Reviewers: Morris Chan, Daniel Cairns, Vikram Grewal, Yaou Hu

Archive: TBD Version accepted: TBD Language: en

Paste the full DESCRIPTION file inside a code block below:

Package: socceranalysisR
Title: Analysis tool for soccer data
Version: 0.0.0.9000
Authors@R: 
    c(person("Gaoxiang", "Wang", , "first.last@example.com", role = c("aut", "cre"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "...")),
           person("Vincent", "Ho", , "first.last@example.com", role = c("aut"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "...")),
           person("Manvir", "Kohli", , "first.last@example.com", role = c("aut"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "...")),
           person("Flora", "Ouedraogo", , "first.last@example.com", role = c("aut"),
           comment = c(ORCID = "...")))
Imports:
    tidyverse,
    cowplot,
    scales,
    rlang,
    dplyr,
    magrittr,
    ggplot2,
    stats,
    devtools
Description: socceranalysisR is a powerful R package designed to make it easy to analyze and understand soccer statistics.    
  With its set of functions, you can quickly obtain summary statistics for a particular team, 
  identify outliers based on certain variables, rank players and display different plots. 
License: MIT + file LICENSE
Encoding: UTF-8
Roxygen: list(markdown = TRUE)
RoxygenNote: 7.2.1
Suggests: 
    covr,
    knitr,
    rmarkdown,
    testthat (>= 3.0.0)
Config/testthat/edition: 3
VignetteBuilder: knitr
URL: https://ubc-mds.github.io/socceranalysisR/

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
- [ ] data validation and testing
- [ ] workflow automation
- [ ] version control
- [ ] citation management and bibliometrics
- [ ] scientific software wrappers
- [ ] field and lab reproducibility tools
- [ ] database software bindings
- [ ] geospatial data
- [ ] text analysis
Explain how and why the package falls under these categories (briefly, 1-2 sentences): This package can extracts data to obtain summary statistics for a particular team, identify outliers based on market value, rank players by goals per game and display different plots.
Who is the target audience and what are scientific applications of this package? The target audience is anyone who is interested in analyzing soccer data. It can be coaches, sports journalists, analysts or fans.
Are there other R packages that accomplish the same thing? If so, how does yours differ or meet our criteria for best-in-category? On CRAN, there is a package named ggsoccer which focuses on showing the in-match data such as shot numbers in a match. Our package focuses on showing the overall soccer-related data, such as the market value of the soccer team.
(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 rOpenSci packaging guide.
[X] I have read the author guide and I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years or to find a replacement.

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.

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 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

Do consider changing the package into a more general one or adding more features specifically related to soccer. It is a very general package right now with basic wrangling and visualization.
Some functions (e.g. rankingplayers) are not very useful as they can also be done with one line of code (which is essentially the one in the source code). Do consider dropping these functions in the package as users may not find them useful but confusing.
The plotting functions are great short cut for me imo. However, I would also like to options to change figure title and axis labels. Maybe you could consider expanding the function arguments to allow more flexibilities.
In the introduction of the package, I will want to see more comparison between this package and other existing packages. Maybe you could highlight more features in the current package and why it outperforms others.
I enjoy the processing of reviewing the package, even I do not know soccer! Keep it up and all the best to your journey of software development :)

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.
[ ] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the rOpenSci packaging guidelines.

Estimated hours spent reviewing:

[ ] 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

Your R version of socceranlalysis package is also interesting and functions well. I have some questions and suggestions listed below:

It would be nice to have in-line comments explaining the major steps of each function, so the readers/users can easily follow what you aim to achieve with a function. Since your package is with an MIT license and is thus open source, it would benefit the users if they want to adapt your code.
When running check() and test() locally, there are 4 notes in checks and 2 warnings in tests. You could take a look at them and remove them.
Your installation section implies that the package is used for analyzing a specific set of soccer data from https://github.com/UBC-MDS/socceranalysis_python/blob/main/soccer_data.xlsx. However, your usage examples are based on small toy data sets you created rather than the data set in the link you provided.
In your roxygen2 function documentation, you import external packages using@import, then there is no need to call them using library(package) again (e.g., playerranking.R, soc_find_team_stat.R, soc_viz_stats.R) or calling them in @examples.
There is a minor styling inconsistency in your REAME.md. For instance, the explanation of function 1 has a period but not all the other three.

Great job! It is a pleasure reviewing your 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: 1

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

Nice work! A few of my thoughts, some repeated from my python review:

1) Your examples section was fairly confusing to follow. Not sure why we're using a toy dataset instead of importing the real one. Also outputting all of your console messages / warnings as comments in the vignettes was confusing at first.

2) As in python, not having to download your dataset separately would be ideal.

3) It seems a tradeoff in using your package is that we lose control over specific details of the plot objects vs. doing it without your helper functions. I'm thinking colors and font sizes and the like. Is there a way to not lose so much of this customization. Perhaps using ... to pass arguments through your functions?

4) The player ranking function returns the full list, even if it is very long. Perhaps add an argument so we can only show the top n in a particular category.

5) I'm a hockey person, and as far as I an tell all of these functions would also work for analyzing similarly-structured hockey data. Maybe rebrand as a sports analytics package to earn a large following? Or lean into the soccer angle by creating some sport-specific functionality.

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

Like your python package, it would be better to automatically download the data set from your repo so that the user does not have to do extra steps
The formatting of the plots could be better, more specifically the titles, legends, colours, etc. Following some of the 531 principles would help with organization and clarity. Some plots show negative values for the age and exponential values for the wage.
The function reference page on the website is not complete, it would be good to add examples here for ease of access.
The only issue I see is that if you used a bigger data set, the scaling of the plots might get thrown off. Maybe make the functions more adaptable for larger data sets.
Instead of adding toy data sets to your readme, use the full data set instead to be representative of what your functions will actually output, this will help the user expect a certain output from you.

UBC-MDS / software-review-2023