Opening statement summary
I am reviewing Yicheng Fu's paper which analyses spatial and temporal trends of hate crimes in Toronto. He attempts to explore variations in the frequency and type of hate crimes to investigate possible biases against race, ethnicity, gender, etc that may be prevalent in Toronto.
General comments about all sections
Strong positive points
The topic you are investigating is very interesting. The first part of your introduction is well written and uses a good amount of external sources to add credibility to your argument.
Critical improvements needed
You need to cite R and your LLM usage.
Data, Results, Discussion, and Improvements section need to be written. You haven't started yet.
Your paper doesn't seem to have a plan to discuss data measurement, unless you plan to include it in your data section. This is an important part of the rubric
You need to include citations in your reference.bib file and call them properly while writing your paper.
You need to cite all the other packages you used as well
Suggestions for improvement: Please consider adding/changing/removing
An important suggestion I recommend is that you properly cite your sources. I see that you have included in-text citations in your introduction but you should add a bibtex citation to the references.bib file and then properly call the citation in so it formats properly in your reference section
In your abstract, I suggest you quantify some of the results you got. For example, in my paper I talked about how the findings show that males are 1.4 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than females in Toronto. Quantifying your results would be a better way to get across your point.
Given the nature of your study, you should include a more thorough literature review of how hate crimes have developed overall, and maybe in Toronto if you could find journals about that. Just using articles is good, but reviewing existing literature is always more credible and could make for a more thorough analysis.
There are some spelling and grammatical mistakes in your introduction. Perhaps go through your work with grammarly / double check your writing so you can maximise points on the "Prose" section of the rubric
You should edit and delete the parts of the starter folder that you don't need. I.E Models, Datasheet, etc
Evaluation:
R Cited: 0/1 (make sure you cite R correclty using bibtex)
LLM Documented: 0/1 (you need to update the llm usage.txt file in the LLM folder, or if you have not used LLMs make this clear
Title: 2/2 (good title)
Author, date, and repo: 2/2 (correctly linked Repo name with correctly coded date and author)
Abstract: 2/4 (Good start, but I would quantify results and findings and include these)
Introduction: 2/4 (You should fix your citations and perhaps expand more on why this paper is important, as well as delete unnecessary paragraphs)
Data: 0/10 (you don't present your findings in any way or discuss any results)
Measurement: 0/4 (there is no discussion of measurement
Cross-references: 0/2 (there aren't any cross-references to tables / graphs)
Prose: 3/6 (you should fix the grammatical issues and finish the rest of your paper)
Graphs/tables/etc: 0/4 (all missing)
Referencing: 0/4 (you haven't appropriately used bibtex)
Commits: 2/2 (there are a good amount of commits)
Sketches: 2/2 (your sketch is really informative and well drawn)
Simulation: 3/4 (your code for your simulation is good, but why did you only select certain variables to simulate? if there is a reason you should comment it in)
Tests: 4/4 (you have a good amount of tests which are relevant)
Reproducibility: 4/4 (you have a good README, you correctly used seeds, and you correctly have an Rproj file.
Code Style: 1/1 (the code is correctly formatted and styled
General Excellence: 0/3 (i think you have the potential to earn marks here, but I would need to see a completed paper first)
Score (as of now): 30/64, or 47/100
Super brief reason: I think your paper has the potential to be really interesting, but you should work on completing it. The main juicy parts of your paper aren't yet started so I can't grade you highly. Good luck and I am excited to check out your paper after its done!
Opening statement summary I am reviewing Yicheng Fu's paper which analyses spatial and temporal trends of hate crimes in Toronto. He attempts to explore variations in the frequency and type of hate crimes to investigate possible biases against race, ethnicity, gender, etc that may be prevalent in Toronto.
General comments about all sections
Strong positive points The topic you are investigating is very interesting. The first part of your introduction is well written and uses a good amount of external sources to add credibility to your argument.
Critical improvements needed
Suggestions for improvement: Please consider adding/changing/removing
Evaluation:
R Cited: 0/1 (make sure you cite R correclty using bibtex) LLM Documented: 0/1 (you need to update the llm usage.txt file in the LLM folder, or if you have not used LLMs make this clear Title: 2/2 (good title) Author, date, and repo: 2/2 (correctly linked Repo name with correctly coded date and author) Abstract: 2/4 (Good start, but I would quantify results and findings and include these) Introduction: 2/4 (You should fix your citations and perhaps expand more on why this paper is important, as well as delete unnecessary paragraphs) Data: 0/10 (you don't present your findings in any way or discuss any results) Measurement: 0/4 (there is no discussion of measurement Cross-references: 0/2 (there aren't any cross-references to tables / graphs) Prose: 3/6 (you should fix the grammatical issues and finish the rest of your paper) Graphs/tables/etc: 0/4 (all missing) Referencing: 0/4 (you haven't appropriately used bibtex) Commits: 2/2 (there are a good amount of commits) Sketches: 2/2 (your sketch is really informative and well drawn) Simulation: 3/4 (your code for your simulation is good, but why did you only select certain variables to simulate? if there is a reason you should comment it in) Tests: 4/4 (you have a good amount of tests which are relevant) Reproducibility: 4/4 (you have a good README, you correctly used seeds, and you correctly have an Rproj file. Code Style: 1/1 (the code is correctly formatted and styled General Excellence: 0/3 (i think you have the potential to earn marks here, but I would need to see a completed paper first)
Score (as of now): 30/64, or 47/100
Super brief reason: I think your paper has the potential to be really interesting, but you should work on completing it. The main juicy parts of your paper aren't yet started so I can't grade you highly. Good luck and I am excited to check out your paper after its done!