karenrni
commented
2 days ago Specifically,
R is appropriately cited- 1 LLM usage is documented-0 Title-1 Author, date, and repo-2 Abstract-3 Introduction-3 Data-8 Measurement-0 Prose-0 Cross-references-0 Captions-1 Graphs/tables/etc-3 Referencing-0 Commits-2 Sketches-0 Simulation-4 Tests-4 Reproducibility-3 Code style-1 General excellence-0
This is a great start for a website but just needs a bit more work!
Strong positive points
Your GitHub is well structured and the important files are appropriately named. The code is nicely and clearly formatted, making it easy to understand . Additionally, the graphs must show actual data and look promising. There are also informative commits. Your introduction is of appropriate length and gives a good introduction to your materials and analysis. It addresses the motivations, importance, what you found, what you did, and other good aspects of a comprehensive introduction.
Critical improvements needed:
The README is empty, missing the LLM detailing and other details. For example, a short description and a overview of file structure. There are some missing or incorrect files in the sketches folder as well as other missing or extra information in the paper. In particular, there is no references or concluding section and the LLM usage file contains unrelated information. Some renaming may be required, such as the changing of the file "Starter_folder". The graphs need cross referencing and some fixing for formatting, but are captioned well and are readable.
Other potential improvements/changes:
There seems to be extra unused files such as the datasheet files in the other folder. There are tests for simulated data within the simulation, but there is an additional file containing tests. Minor typos in abstract and in citation formatting.
Suggestions for improvement:
Adding missing information in relevant areas, renaming ambiguous files, deleting excess or unrelated data or files and reviewing the final paper. Take special care of the format of the graphs and tables to ensure they are readable while remaining detailed and relevant. Missing large chunks of paper sections should be addressed, such as the concluding paragraph and other discussions.
Evaluation:
Estimated mark:
I have gone through and added each component resulting with an estimated 36/100
Reason: It needs more work like including more detailed information in the ReadMe, adding missing information such as references or LLM use, and has excess/incorrect files or data in some files. However, this looks to be a foundation for something great!