Possible Improvements for the Analysis Report 1 - Assignment 2

[ZIYAOWANG123]

The overall report is a fine report with a discussion on the change of subscription between mobile and landline phones from 1970 to 2010.

Here are some improvements that can be carried on for further development:

For section 3.3

1. The structure and wording of the section can be improved by correcting grammar issues and using short sentences.
2. Additional information regarding the explanation of formating the prediction model

• For example, the reasons for choosing these independent variables in the model. Plus, explaining the model type (i.e. linear model in this case) and writing some sample interpretations regarding the model prediction will help readers to understand the function of the model.

3. The evidence to support the conclusion from this section (i.e. model formation and selection) is not enough or appropriate. It ignores the examining of linear model assumptions (i.e. B.L.U.E.), also none checks on the model residual plot to ensure the prediction reliability.
4. For this section, my personal suggestion is to either edit the question again or reform the model formation process to obtain the possible linear prediction model with proper procedures.

For Conclusion

• some findings may be too certain to conclude with possible data limitations. Hence, I will suggest summarizing the analysis findings based on clearly stated assumptions and limitations to inform the readers of the conditions for these conclusions.

For the Reproducibility issue (mentioned in both peer reviews)

• The issue is resolved by using a relative path to read the files:

• Please ensure using the relative path to read any data sets or files (I will recommend using the here function from the here package).
• Also, ask your teammate(s) to output/knit the document again will improve and check the reproducibility of the report.

The new research questions will explore more relevant information from the data sets to the audience, additionally, may build an advancement on the previous possibly (see the late comments on this issue).

[Arthur070999]

The overall report looks good with some minor changes needed, like what Billy mentioned before

1. We were not able to knit the previous RMD file but with fixing the relative path we were able to knit the file

2. section 3.1 graph looks alright but some minor changes are needed, changing the x and y axis label to make it more understandable. This section is very well explained but the wordings are too long we can make it more simple using synonyms and keywords.

3. The data description looks alright, so there might be no or maybe some little changes regarding the choice of sentences

4. For the additional question I might think of original questions which are connected with the previous questions to make a connection with it. (deeper analysis)