I am peer-reviewing Daniel's paper on TTC Streetcar Delays project delays in Toronto's streetcar system.
Strong positive points
The repository is well-organized, making it easy for users to follow the data processing steps. There are well-formatted graphs and tables in the paper.
Critical improvements needed
The project would benefit from a more detailed description in the Abstract, and details such as why specific data cleaning steps were taken or why certain variables were included or excluded. Additionally, the repository lacks a comprehensive explanation of the project’s purpose and outcomes in the README file.
Suggestions for improvement
Enhance the README file with a detailed explanation of the project objectives, and key findings.
Make sure you review Chapter 2 on how to properly cite in R
Remember to not show any R code in the final paper
Adding a subtitle can show more about what are you researching
Please consider adding/changing/removing:
Add a project summary with the main findings and recommendations.
Change the name of your Rproj.
Add more in-depth descriptions of each script’s purpose in the README.
Add proper references to sources or documentation
Evaluation:
Based on the evaluation criteria, the repository is solid but would benefit from additional context and clarity in documentation.
Estimated mark:
66 out of 100.
Reason:
The project is technically sound and well-organized, but the lack of a comprehensive project overview and detailed explanations.
Opening statement summary
I am peer-reviewing Daniel's paper on TTC Streetcar Delays project delays in Toronto's streetcar system.
Strong positive points
The repository is well-organized, making it easy for users to follow the data processing steps. There are well-formatted graphs and tables in the paper.
Critical improvements needed
The project would benefit from a more detailed description in the Abstract, and details such as why specific data cleaning steps were taken or why certain variables were included or excluded. Additionally, the repository lacks a comprehensive explanation of the project’s purpose and outcomes in the README file.
Suggestions for improvement
Enhance the README file with a detailed explanation of the project objectives, and key findings. Make sure you review Chapter 2 on how to properly cite in R Remember to not show any R code in the final paper Adding a subtitle can show more about what are you researching
Please consider adding/changing/removing:
Add a project summary with the main findings and recommendations. Change the name of your Rproj. Add more in-depth descriptions of each script’s purpose in the README. Add proper references to sources or documentation
Evaluation:
Based on the evaluation criteria, the repository is solid but would benefit from additional context and clarity in documentation.
Estimated mark:
66 out of 100.
Reason:
The project is technically sound and well-organized, but the lack of a comprehensive project overview and detailed explanations.