STA9750 Victor-Louie MiniProject #01

Hi @michaelweylandt!

I've uploaded my work for MiniProject #01 - check it out!

https://.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

Link seems busted - you need to substitute <GITHUB_USERNAME> for your name (Victor-Louie)

Thanks @Victor-Louie !

Peer Feedback:

@Malexandra-Jerez
@bleuuuz
@clintavarghese
@ElissaLeung

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project #01. Please review @Victor-Louie's submission for this mini-project and provide peer feedback.

Using the rubric at https://michael-weylandt.com/STA9750/miniprojects/mini01.html#rubric, please grade their submission out of a total of 50 points.

For each of the five categories, please give them a separate score and provide a total (sum) score across the entire assignment. Feel free to assign extra credit if you feel it is warranted (following the rubric).

If you give a score of less than 5 for any category, please provide a suggestion for improvement. (You can also give suggestions for any element they did well - more feedback is always great!)

As you go through this peer feedback exercise, think about what you particularly like about this submission and how you can incorporate that approach in your future work. If something is particularly insightful or creative, give some kudos!

Evaluators: This should take you around 15 minutes per peer feedback. You are not required to engage in substantial back-and-forth with @Victor-Louie, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

@Victor-Louie: please engage fully with your peers. They are here to help you!

Submission URL should be: https://Victor-Louie.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

Feel free to link to other repos, the course documentation, or other useful examples.

Thanks! @michaelweylandt

CC: @charles-ramirez

Hey Victor,

Great work on your project!

Written Communication: 5/5

Project is written extremely well and walks the audience through your thought process. Perhaps you could add a little more context in regards to question six as it becomes mostly code by the end of your report.

Project Skeleton: 5/5

Nice job! All parts of the project were accounted for.

Formatting & Display: 3/5

Maybe you can reform the table to another color as I am having difficulty reading them because they blend in with the background theme.
For your second table perhaps you could remove column 3 mode to make it clearer.

Code Quality: 5/5

Despite not using comments in your code you effectively explain the process you are working through through your writing.

Data Preparation: 5/5

Thanks for sharing!

Elijah

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:26 AM Michael Weylandt @.***> wrote:

Thanks @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie !

Peer Feedback:

@Malexandra-Jerez https://github.com/Malexandra-Jerez

@bleuuuz https://github.com/bleuuuz

@clintavarghese https://github.com/clintavarghese

@ElissaLeung https://github.com/ElissaLeung

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project #1 https://github.com/Victor-Louie/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/1. Please review @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie's submission for this mini-project and provide peer feedback.

Using the rubric at https://michael-weylandt.com/STA9750/miniprojects/mini01.html#rubric, please grade their submission out of a total of 50 points.

For each of the five categories, please give them a separate score and provide a total (sum) score across the entire assignment. Feel free to assign extra credit if you feel it is warranted (following the rubric).

If you give a score of less than 5 for any category, please provide a suggestion for improvement. (You can also give suggestions for any element they did well - more feedback is always great!)

As you go through this peer feedback exercise, think about what you particularly like about this submission and how you can incorporate that approach in your future work. If something is particularly insightful or creative, give some kudos!

Evaluators: This should take you around 15 minutes per peer feedback. You are not required to engage in substantial back-and-forth with @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

@Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie: please engage fully with your peers. They are here to help you!

Submission URL should be: https://Victor-Louie.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

Feel free to link to other repos, the course documentation, or other useful examples.

Thanks! @michaelweylandt https://github.com/michaelweylandt

CC: @charles-ramirez https://github.com/charles-ramirez

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Victor-Louie/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/2#issuecomment-2377287474, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BK75UXEJWOEUQWBSLVHQSVTZYQRRXAVCNFSM6AAAAABO25JIMKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNZXGI4DONBXGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

Hi Victor!

Please see my feedback below.

Written Communication = 10 Report style, great job!

Project Skeleton = 10 Great work at completing everything!

Formatting and Display = 8 Excellent, great color. However, there were a couple of blocks for the tables that looked opaque due to color. The questions section was good, and did the job, but perhaps highlighting or italicizing the questions to differentiate the Q and A would be great.

Code Quality = 10 Clean and organized

Data Preparation = 10 good - all q's answered

Total = 48

Rubric

Course ElementExcellent (9-10)Great (7-8)Good (5-6)Adequate (3-4)Needs Improvement (1-2)Extra Credit Written Communication Report is well-written and flows naturally. Motivation for key steps is clearly explained to reader without excessive detail. Key findings are highlighted and appropriately given context. Report has no grammatical or writing issues. Writing is accessible and flows naturally. Key findings are highlighted, but lack suitable motivation and context. Report has no grammatical or writing issues. Key findings are present but insufficiently highlighted. Writing is intelligible, but has some grammatical errors. Key findings are obscured. Report exhibits significant weakness in written communication. Key points are difficult to discern. Report includes extra context beyond instructor provided information. Project Skeleton Code completes all instructor-provided tasks correctly Response to one instructor provided task is skipped, incorrect, or otherwise incomplete. Responses to two instructor provided tasks are skipped, incorrect, or otherwise incomplete. Response to three instructor provided tasks are skipped, incorrect, or otherwise incomplete. Less than half of the instructor-provided tasks were successfully completed. Report exhibits particularly creative insights beyond instructor specifications. Formatting & Display Tables have well-formatted column names, suitable numbers of digits, and attractive presentation. Table has a suitable caption. Column names and digits are well-chosen, but formatting could be improved. Bad column names (opaque variable names or other undefined acronyms) Unfiltered ‘data dump’ instead of curated table. No tables. Report includes one or more high-quality graphics (created using R). Code Quality

Code is (near) flawless.

Code passes all styler and lintr type analyses without issue. Comments give context of the analysis, not simply defining functions used in a particular line. Code has well-chosen variable names and basic comments. Code executes properly, but is difficult to read. Code fails to execute properly. Code takes advantage of advanced Quarto features to improve presentation of results. Data Preparation Automatic (10/10). Out of scope for this mini-project Report modifies instructor-provided import code to use additional columns or data sources in a way that creates novel insights.

Kind regards, Maria - Alex

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:26 AM Michael Weylandt @.***> wrote:

Thanks @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie !

Peer Feedback:

@Malexandra-Jerez https://github.com/Malexandra-Jerez

@bleuuuz https://github.com/bleuuuz

@clintavarghese https://github.com/clintavarghese

@ElissaLeung https://github.com/ElissaLeung

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project #1 https://github.com/Victor-Louie/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/1. Please review @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie's submission for this mini-project and provide peer feedback.

Using the rubric at https://michael-weylandt.com/STA9750/miniprojects/mini01.html#rubric, please grade their submission out of a total of 50 points.

For each of the five categories, please give them a separate score and provide a total (sum) score across the entire assignment. Feel free to assign extra credit if you feel it is warranted (following the rubric).

If you give a score of less than 5 for any category, please provide a suggestion for improvement. (You can also give suggestions for any element they did well - more feedback is always great!)

As you go through this peer feedback exercise, think about what you particularly like about this submission and how you can incorporate that approach in your future work. If something is particularly insightful or creative, give some kudos!

Evaluators: This should take you around 15 minutes per peer feedback. You are not required to engage in substantial back-and-forth with @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

@Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie: please engage fully with your peers. They are here to help you!

Submission URL should be: https://Victor-Louie.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

Feel free to link to other repos, the course documentation, or other useful examples.

Thanks! @michaelweylandt https://github.com/michaelweylandt

CC: @charles-ramirez https://github.com/charles-ramirez

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Victor-Louie/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/2#issuecomment-2377287474, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AT5NUV2J43SZPBVKOM4I4ZTZYQRRVAVCNFSM6AAAAABO25JIMKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNZXGI4DONBXGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

Hello Victor,

Fixing my scoring to be out of 10 instead of five.

Written Communication: 10/10 Your project is written extremely well and walks the audience through your thought process. Maybe you could add a little more context around question six because your report becomes code-heavy towards the end.

Project Skeleton: 10/10 Nice job! All parts of the project were accounted for.

Formatting & Display: 7/10 I had some difficulty reading your tables because they blend in with the overall theme of the website. Maybe you can find a way to contrast the colors more by changing the color of the table? Maybe you can remove column "3 Mode" from your second table as it repeats data stated in column "Mode".

Code Quality: 10/10 Nice job with your code quality! Although you don't comment on your code your explanations effectively walk the audience through your coding process.

Data Preparation: 10/10

Grade: 47/50

Thanks again for sharing!

On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 11:53 PM Elijah Yong @.***> wrote:

Hey Victor,

Great work on your project!

Written Communication: 5/5

Project is written extremely well and walks the audience through your thought process. Perhaps you could add a little more context in regards to question six as it becomes mostly code by the end of your report.

Project Skeleton: 5/5

Nice job! All parts of the project were accounted for.

Formatting & Display: 3/5

Maybe you can reform the table to another color as I am having difficulty reading them because they blend in with the background theme.

For your second table perhaps you could remove column 3 mode to make it clearer.

Code Quality: 5/5

Despite not using comments in your code you effectively explain the process you are working through through your writing.

Data Preparation: 5/5

Thanks for sharing!

Elijah

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:26 AM Michael Weylandt < @.***> wrote:

Thanks @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie !

Peer Feedback:

@Malexandra-Jerez https://github.com/Malexandra-Jerez

@bleuuuz https://github.com/bleuuuz

@clintavarghese https://github.com/clintavarghese

@ElissaLeung https://github.com/ElissaLeung

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project #1 https://github.com/Victor-Louie/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/1. Please review @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie's submission for this mini-project and provide peer feedback.

Using the rubric at https://michael-weylandt.com/STA9750/miniprojects/mini01.html#rubric, please grade their submission out of a total of 50 points.

For each of the five categories, please give them a separate score and provide a total (sum) score across the entire assignment. Feel free to assign extra credit if you feel it is warranted (following the rubric).

If you give a score of less than 5 for any category, please provide a suggestion for improvement. (You can also give suggestions for any element they did well - more feedback is always great!)

As you go through this peer feedback exercise, think about what you particularly like about this submission and how you can incorporate that approach in your future work. If something is particularly insightful or creative, give some kudos!

Evaluators: This should take you around 15 minutes per peer feedback. You are not required to engage in substantial back-and-forth with @Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

@Victor-Louie https://github.com/Victor-Louie: please engage fully with your peers. They are here to help you!

Submission URL should be: https://Victor-Louie.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

Feel free to link to other repos, the course documentation, or other useful examples.

Thanks! @michaelweylandt https://github.com/michaelweylandt

CC: @charles-ramirez https://github.com/charles-ramirez

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Victor-Louie/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/2#issuecomment-2377287474, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BK75UXEJWOEUQWBSLVHQSVTZYQRRXAVCNFSM6AAAAABO25JIMKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNZXGI4DONBXGQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

Hi @Victor-Louie!

I enjoyed reading through your mini project #01 submission.

Below is my feedback:

Written Communication: 8/10 I liked the introduction and the explanation for your data cleaning. I think you could have included some more context and personal thoughts for the metrics you found for task #3, task #4, and task #6, beyond just the solution to the questions. Before and after each question, you may want to provide more information and analysis to the reader trying to follow the purpose of the report, beyond just knowing that certain metrics are obtainable from the data set. Perhaps you could also include more section headers, so that readers can more easily digest and understand the different parts of your report.

Project Skeleton: 10/10 Nice job on finishing all the tasks! I think your report would benefit from creating more section headers, so its easier for the audience to understand the separate parts of your report.

Formatting & Display: 9/10 The only comment I have is for your data tables, they came out very faint and blended in with the background of your site. Maybe there’s a way to edit the table to make the font brighter or contrast the background of the table more. Perhaps you could have separate code blocks for each question in your tasks, I think sometimes what happened was your comment for a previous question ended up in the code block of the subsequent question. By creating separate code blocks for each of the questions, you could avoid this issue.

Code Quality: 10/10 The code looks neatly organized and runs well. There also were comments within code blocks indicating the question being answered. I think including the transition and analysis sentences between questions/tasks would be more helpful to readers looking through the report to better understand the code and output presented.

Data Preparation: 10/10

Total: 47/50

Overall, great job!

Elissa

Hi @Victor-Louie , I enjoyed reading through your mini project.

Below is my feedback:

Written Communication: 8.5/10 I like how you divided your report into sessions. I would suggest adding more context for your finding along with all tasks.

Project Skeleton: 10/10 Nice job on finishing all the tasks.

Formatting & Display: 9.5/10 Change up the fonts a little bit. Other than that excellent

Code Quality: 10/10 The code looks neat

Data Preparation: 10/10

Total: 48/50

Overall, great attempt

Thanks, Clinta

Victor-Louie / STA9750-2024-FALL

STA9750 Victor-Louie MiniProject #01 #2