Hi I am Chengzhi Ye. First, I am very glad that I can review the possum group's work. When browsing that exploratory data analysis which was completed and improved by several people, I have learned a lot of practical analysis skills and some methods to make ingenious figures, which have provided great help to my study of 5521. Among them, I was surprised by the information conveyed by two figures in that analysis and the creating skills.
First Figure
The first figure is Figure 4.7. Although I said the first figure, in fact, it contains four figures which includes the recorded sulfur levels in the Antarctic ice sheet, the recorded sulfur levels in the Greenland ice sheets, the change in tree ring score size from year to year and the year on end percentage change in European weather index. From the plot we can know after the volcanic eruption, the sulfur deposits will increase, and there are some negative changes in the tree growth z scores and climate index after the volatile increases
Pros:
Nice work, they has carefully summarized the relationship between volcanic eruption and three parameters, such as sulfur levels, tree ring score size and weather change index, logical and sufficient evidences.
Consider improving:
The combination of layout can save space, but the four figures are too close to each other, which makes the content on the diagram become fuzzy and can't be browsed clearly.
There is a problem with the y-axis spacing setting in those four figures, which results in the numbers being crowded together. It is possible to enlarge the figure or combine only two figures together to have a better display.
Second Figure
The second one is Figure 4.8, which shows the frequency of volcanic eruption under different VEI rating through ggridges package. The data are for each eruption since 1812 and the VEI rates at each eruption.
Pros:
the content of this picture is very clear, and the title of the coordinate axis is also very detailed, so that people can know the meaning of the content at a glance.
the use of colors is very skilled. It is right not to use close colors.
the legend beside figure is also very skillful. Instead of using the common legend design, they have used table and then change to tableGrob, which also helped me learn some new knowledges.
Considering improving:
Although density plot can well show the frequency of volcanic eruption, when the number of eruptions increases, it is difficult to judge the level of VEI. Because when the peak happen in the lower half of the x-axis, it will be too far away from the Y axis to figure out the exactly number. Maybe it would be better to add a label in the peak value?
If Figure 4.8 can be magnified a little bit, the effect displayed may be better. If we look at the current size, we can't clearly judge the peak value of density plot when the VEI is 4, 5, 6.
Supplement and Conclusion
In addition to these two figures, the overall structure of that analysis is very complete, and it is also very logical. However, what surprised me is that there are some typos and grammatical errors . Although these small errors are not noticeable, they are still a bit abrupt in this analysis.
Then I would like to add that I still cannot knit the RMD file out. The error reported is that there is a problem with my network connection, but this is my own problem. Maybe because I am in China, the network connection is unstable.
But the report is still excellent! Good Job, Guys!
Introduction
Hi I am Chengzhi Ye. First, I am very glad that I can review the possum group's work. When browsing that exploratory data analysis which was completed and improved by several people, I have learned a lot of practical analysis skills and some methods to make ingenious figures, which have provided great help to my study of 5521. Among them, I was surprised by the information conveyed by two figures in that analysis and the creating skills.
First Figure
The first figure is Figure 4.7. Although I said the first figure, in fact, it contains four figures which includes the recorded sulfur levels in the Antarctic ice sheet, the recorded sulfur levels in the Greenland ice sheets, the change in tree ring score size from year to year and the year on end percentage change in European weather index. From the plot we can know after the volcanic eruption, the sulfur deposits will increase, and there are some negative changes in the tree growth z scores and climate index after the volatile increases
Pros:
Nice work, they has carefully summarized the relationship between volcanic eruption and three parameters, such as sulfur levels, tree ring score size and weather change index, logical and sufficient evidences.
Consider improving:
Second Figure
The second one is Figure 4.8, which shows the frequency of volcanic eruption under different VEI rating through ggridges package. The data are for each eruption since 1812 and the VEI rates at each eruption.
Pros:
Considering improving:
Supplement and Conclusion
In addition to these two figures, the overall structure of that analysis is very complete, and it is also very logical. However, what surprised me is that there are some typos and grammatical errors . Although these small errors are not noticeable, they are still a bit abrupt in this analysis.
Then I would like to add that I still cannot knit the RMD file out. The error reported is that there is a problem with my network connection, but this is my own problem. Maybe because I am in China, the network connection is unstable.
But the report is still excellent! Good Job, Guys!