wordwright - group 4

[carrieyanyi]

Submitting Author: Yi Yan (@carrieyanyi) All current maintainers: (@yhan178, @jinyz8888, @alexzhang0825) Package Name: Wordwright One-Line Description of Package: A python package for text processing. Repository Link: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/wordwright Version submitted: https://github.com/UBC-MDS/wordwright/releases/tag/2.0.0 Editor: Tiffany Timbers
Reviewer 1: Orix Au Yeung Reviewer 2: Jake Barnabe Reviewer 3: Mona Zhu Reviewer 4: Nicole Bidwell Archive: TBD JOSS DOI: TBD Version accepted: TBD Date accepted (month/day/year): TBD

---

Code of Conduct & Commitment to Maintain Package

• [X] I agree to abide by pyOpenSci's Code of Conduct during the review process and in maintaining my package after should it be accepted.
• [X] I have read and will commit to package maintenance after the review as per the pyOpenSci Policies Guidelines.

Description

Wordwright focuses on text analysis and processing. It offers a range of functions, from basic text cleaning to more complex analyses such as language detection, word and sentence counting, word frequency summarizing, and keyword searching. This functionality is particularly useful in fields like data analysis, natural language processing, and anywhere textual data needs to be understood or transformed. Functions are designed to be self-explanatory, which is especially beneficial for those new to programming or text processing.

Scope

• Please indicate which category or categories. Check out our package scope page to learn more about our scope. (If you are unsure of which category you fit, we suggest you make a pre-submission inquiry):

  • [ ] Data retrieval
  • [X] Data extraction
  • [X] Data processing/munging
  • [ ] Data deposition
  • [ ] Data validation and testing
  • [ ] Data visualization[^1]
  • [ ] Workflow automation
  • [ ] Citation management and bibliometrics
  • [ ] Scientific software wrappers
  • [ ] Database interoperability

Domain Specific & Community Partnerships

- [ ] Geospatial
- [ ] Education
- [ ] Pangeo

Community Partnerships

If your package is associated with an existing community please check below:

• [ ] Pangeo
  • [ ] My package adheres to the Pangeo standards listed in the pyOpenSci peer review guidebook

[^1]: Please fill out a pre-submission inquiry before submitting a data visualization package.

• For all submissions, explain how the and why the package falls under the categories you indicated above. In your explanation, please address the following points (briefly, 1-2 sentences for each):

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

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

  • 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] uses 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 tutorial with examples of its essential functions and uses.
• [X] has a test suite.
• [X] has continuous integration setup, such as GitHub Actions 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: JOSS accepts our review as theirs. You will NOT need to go through another full review. JOSS will only review your paper.md file. Be sure to link to this pyOpenSci issue when a JOSS issue is opened for your package. Also be sure to tell the JOSS editor that this is a pyOpenSci reviewed package once you reach this step.*

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.

Confirm each of the following by checking the box.

• [X] I have read the author guide.
• [ ] I expect to maintain this package for at least 2 years and can help find a replacement for the maintainer (team) if needed.

Please fill out our survey

• [ ] Last but not least please fill out our pre-review survey. This helps us track submission and improve our peer review process. We will also ask our reviewers and editors to fill this out.

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

Editor and Review Templates

The editor template can be found here.

The review template can be found here.

[jbarns14]

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:

• [ ] 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 the 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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:
  • [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: 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 a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• [x] Short description of package goals.
• [x] Package installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• [ ] Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • [x] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• [ ] Link to your documentation website.
• [ ] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
• [ ] 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 whether:

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

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:
  • [x] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
  • [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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

---

Review Comments

Overall, great work guys, your package is super interesting!

Some changes I would consider making are:

• I know the link to your documentation is included in the docs badge, but it would be worth also including it in the 'about' section on the homepage of your repo just to make it extra easy to find.
• Add a 'statement of need' section in the README file to give a description of the problems the package is designed to solve and to elaborate on what separates wordwright from similar packages that already exist (if there are any).
• Add a citation section to acknowledge any functions that your package is dependent on or any other information cited or used in the development of the package.
• Add a 'repostatus' badge as well as a package version badge.
• It may be worth changing the name of the package environment to 'wordwright' or something more closely related to the package name instead of '524' as users not related to MDS will not understand the relevance of the name '524'.

Awesome job, keep up the great work!

[monazhu]

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 the 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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:
  • [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: 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 a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• [x] Short description of package goals.
• [x] Package installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• [x] Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • [x] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• [x] Link to your documentation website.
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
• [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 whether:

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

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.
• [ ] Automated tests:
  • [x] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
  • [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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

---

Review Comments

Overall a really nicely put together package and very useful functions for text analysis. The tests were also well documented and very comprehensive - well done! Below I have listed some suggestions for improvement for your consideration.

• Metadata: It would be helpful to list the core contributors near the top of the README, and possibly include hyperlinks to their profiles (rather than @ their handle) as it is more user friendly.
• Package usability: You can make use of the __init__.py file to populate the namespace, which can help make the package more user-friendly. Rather than importing each function one by one, it would be great if the user could simply type import wordwright or from wordwrite import *
• Vignette/Example: To improve overall readibility, one suggestion I have is to reduce the redundancy in examples in the tutorial, as some of them did not seem distinctly different from one another or the extra demonstration seemed unnecessary. For instance, rather than using 3 reviews, it would be sufficient to use 1 for the clean_text and counting_sentences() functions. Where multiple texts/examples were useful was when demonstrating the language_detection() function (English vs Spanish). Reducing any unnecessary redundancy can helps the reader to pick out the most important pieces of information in order to understand the package's functionality.
• Contributing: I noticed that there aren't any notes about how a developer might go about adding new packages to the poetry.lock file, nor a more comprehensive set of instructions on testing for coverage, etc.
• README installtion troubleshooting: The installation section was very friendly for users, but some sections were a little vague (e.g., under "Poetry installation issues", I wasn't sure what you meant by ensuring that pyproject.toml is "properly configured" - do you mean making sure that the format is up to date with the current standard? It might be helpful to provide a link to the documentation on pyproject.toml if that's what you were referring to

I would like to reiterate that the package is in great shape, and that my suggestions are more focused around usability and readability, both for the average user as well as for potential contributors. I look forward to your response to my comments/review!

Mona

[SoloSynth1]

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 the 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.
• [ ] 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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:
  • [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [x] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: 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 a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• [x] Short description of package goals.
• [x] Package installation instructions
• [ ] Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• [ ] Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • [ ] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• [ ] Link to your documentation website.
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
• [ ] 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 whether:

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

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Installation succeeds as documented.
• [x] Functionality: Any functional claims of the software been confirmed.
• [ ] Performance: Any performance claims of the software been confirmed.
• [x] Automated tests:
  • [ ] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [x] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• [x] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
  • [x] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • [ ] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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

---

Review Comments

Overall, this is a nicely designed package that pack several useful functions together into single package. I can definitely see its potential, especially related to NLP applications. The functions are behaving as expected are also well-documented. One thing I like is that the test suite is testing exceptions and edge cases extensively and the package test error returned ffrom the dependency.

However, during the review I noticed several areas that could be improved in terms of the quality of the package:

• In the API reference of the package, the function wordwright.word_frequency.frequent_words is missing examples in the docstrings.
• Badge for related information are missing that are required by the package guideline. Namely, the currently release version on PyPI./conda.
• Consider to add a link to the readthedocs site. Currently the only link to the site is the doc passing badge.
• If poetry is to be used in the future for installing the development build of this build, consider to use a less generic environment name in the conda environment.yaml file; The current environment name 524 is very likely to clash with other existing environments.
• Consider to add a linter for consistent formatting throughout the source files.
• CHANGELOG.md does not match the one showing in the ReadTheDocs site, which only contain changelog up to v0.1.0.

Keep up the good work!

[nicolebid]

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 the 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 pyproject.toml file or elsewhere.

Readme file 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:
  • [x] Continuous integration and test coverage,
  • [x] Docs building (if you have a documentation website),
  • [ ] A repostatus.org badge,
  • [x] Python versions supported,
  • [ ] Current package version (on PyPI / Conda).

NOTE: 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 a badge for pyOpenSci peer-review will be provided upon acceptance.)

• [x] Short description of package goals.
• [x] Package installation instructions
• [x] Any additional setup required to use the package (authentication tokens, etc.)
• [ ] Descriptive links to all vignettes. If the package is small, there may only be a need for one vignette which could be placed in the README.md file.
  • [ ] Brief demonstration of package usage (as it makes sense - links to vignettes could also suffice here if package description is clear)
• [x] Link to your documentation website.
• [x] If applicable, how the package compares to other similar packages and/or how it relates to other packages in the scientific ecosystem.
• [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 whether:

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

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:
  • [x] All tests pass on the reviewer's local machine for the package version submitted by the author. Ideally this should be a tagged version making it easy for reviewers to install.
  • [x] Tests cover essential functions of the package and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions.
• [ ] Continuous Integration: Has continuous integration setup (We suggest using Github actions but any CI platform is acceptable for review)
• [ ] Packaging guidelines: The package conforms to the pyOpenSci packaging guidelines. A few notable highlights to look at:
  • [ ] Package supports modern versions of Python and not End of life versions.
  • [x] Code format is standard throughout package and follows PEP 8 guidelines (CI tests for linting pass)

For packages also 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: 45min

---

Review Comments:

• The installation instructions were clear and easy for me to follow. I thought it was really useful that you included the "Troubleshooting" section too.
• Your functions were interesting to review. They could easily be understood simply from reading the docstrings.
• Your explanations in the vignettes could be a bit more concise, to allow the reader to easily read through. But overall, the functions flowed well together.
• in readthedocs, I suggest removing the section links: 'motivation', 'introduction', 'imports' and 'getting started with text files' (under the Wordwright Tutorial tab). Since these sections aren't long and they are at the top, users can easily scroll through them. This way there will be less clutter when wanting to find a specific function in the tutorial.

Overall, great work and interesting package!