Summary

[driskerr]

Overall: good job! Your slides are well designed and you went above-and-beyond in some areas. However, some of your analyses were incorrect, specifically: • chi-square test for species types most likely to be endangered • missing a bar chart for the count of sheep by national park • incorrect sample size for foot-and-mouth disease study

Your slides are very well-designed and communicate the information effectively. You have a good sense of the right amount of information to provide on a slide (not too much, not too little). I appreciate that you added additional graphs to give the reader a better understanding of the data set (like the pie chart for conservation status and bar chart for the rate of endangerment by species-type).

Your interpretation of the chi-square test results are a little off. You are correct that Mammals v. Birds HAS NO statistical significant difference in the rate of endagerement and that Mammals v. Reptiles DOES HAVE statistical significant difference in the rate of endagerement. This demonstrates that you ran the chi-square test and interpreted the p-values correctly. However, you are incorrect in stating that: "Reptiles are more likely to be endangered when compared to Mammals". In fact, the inverse is true: Mammals are statistically more likely to be endangered than Reptiles. Look at the bar chart on the previous slide as evidence of this fact: ~16% Mammals require intervention while only ~6% of Reptiles require intervention. To clarify, in case there was confusion, a statistically significant p-value (<0.10) does not necessarily imply order of magnitude (i.e. the first group is larger than the second group), just that the two populations ARE different. You have to look closer at the data to determine the order of that difference (in this case, mammals having a higher rate of intervention than reptiles).

There is a miscalculation of the correct sample size for the foot-and-mouth disease question. Although your input data was correct, the correct sample size is 510 (not 870). Please consult the sample size calculator (found here). Also, we were seeking a bar graph of the sheep populations in the four national parks in this final section.

Overall, solid work! We recommend that you review the interpretation of statistical tests results and read directions a little more closely next time. You clearly understand how to manipulate data and communicate your findings. Here's to much more data analysis in your future!

[dylancarruthers]

Thanks for the review, I appreciate you taking the time to explain the parts that I got wrong so well.

Would you like me to re-do any of the work?

[driskerr]

Hi Dylan! I appreciate that you appreciate my comments :) There is no requirement for you to update your work, but you are welcome to revise it for your own understanding and satisfaction.