Peer review for proposal - Group A

[hknguyen20]

• While geographical Heatmap is effective to visualize concentration or birthplaces and their proximity to team locations, you should think about how to incorporate career longevity into the heatmap and how to incorporate the “evolved over time” aspect that you described. I think can use a normal map and describe career longevity with color intensity, and use data points to for concentration. Add an interactive drag bar to show different maps over time.

• I think there are two problems with question 2.

1. This question has been answered by the blog the dataset is motivated by. You should consider how to make the question novel and not a replica of old experiments.
2. Choice of variable for question 2 is quite narrow or random without clear motivation. In section 2, you mentioned exploring height and training, which I think makes clearer sense when analyzing their career trajectories than birth dates. You could explain why there might be some correlation to motivate your question better as the birthday choice does not immediately make sense, assuming normal people haven’t read the blog.

[tienvu95]

Great catch, I think you did pretty good literature reviews when reviewing this proposal. I also believe they should include other variables in their qn, since the players are from a few clusters of countries(i.e I can use a 2-column to visualize it, I there might be less than 20 rows). So adding another dimension will make this questions worth investigating.

[HuuDatDo]

Dear @tienvu95 and @hknguyen20,

Thank you so much for your detailed reviews! We find them really helpful!

Incorporating career longevity into the heatmap is a good idea but I think representing the heatmap with many variables might lead to non-sense visualization because some variables would not be covariant. Therefore, we think examining the relationship between birthplace with different variables individually would be the best option, and if some visualizations are similar, we can further imply a meaningful conclusion!

Regarding question 2, I agree that this question is quite lacks novelty, so we will change the question.