DN_1 ready for review

[skbowd]

DN_1 is ready for review. I made notes below on what to check in the data dictionary as well as each individual tab. Not too much to do for this one. :)

Data dictionary for DN_1

• [x] a few notes to check in column Q.

Admin

• [x] should still add a keep/delete column to all of the DN_1 tabs? Or...should I just remove the pink text in the admin tab we decided to delete?
• [x] a few notes to check in column L

Assessment & Eval

• [x] one note in column K to check

O & E

• [x] still some "TBDs" in column J (Within the Priority Project Watershed)
• [x] red text in column F is the large circulation numbers for larger Publications. Keep?
• [x] a few notes to review in column N

Misc Activities

• [x] a few notes to review in column I

Practices

• [x] We never used this tab since it was never fully populated. Should it be taken out of the dataset completely?

[lnowatzke]

Admin _should still add a keep/delete column to all of the DN1 tabs? Or...should I just remove the pink text in the admin tab we decided to delete?

• [x] See my note in the data dictionary. Let's remove that row from the data dictionary since the column doesn't exist, and leave all data in DN_01.

O & E red text in column F is the large circulation numbers for larger Publications. Keep? Let's keep the numbers in mass communications for column F. We didn't use it in our final analysis, and for future potential data users it's clear that they're large circulation numbers.

As a note, I changed all social media entries to "No" for within watershed. They aren't particularly relevant anyway, and would require a very different kind of analysis.

Practices We never used this tab since it was never fully populated. Should it be taken out of the dataset completely? Right, let's leave it here, but let's not upload it to the repository. (It's marked as "No" in the data dictionary, too.)

[skbowd]

Done here except there is one entry date/year in red text (2015.08.15Q). Anyone know why???

[loriabendroth]

Done here except there is one entry date/year in red text (2015.08.15Q). Anyone know why???

I removed red coloring. Studied it for awhile and couldn't find issue with it so changed to black.

[loriabendroth]

@skbowd - in the DD for "location", we have "Not Reported" as well as "-9999"; see Practices tab for example. How would these be different? I think we want -9999 instead of Not Reported?

[loriabendroth]

@skbowd , there is red date under Outreach here: 13WQI-003 | Central Turkey River Nutrient Reduction Demonstration Project | Michelle Elliott | 2014 | 2013.12.15M | 95

I had colored this red I think because the year and date differ. Should this be 2013? Can you scan rest of dates to see if any other aspects like this exist? I would just sort by date, then year and see if visually align.

SKB: done

[loriabendroth]

@skbowd - in the DD for "location", we have "Not Reported" as well as "-9999"; see Practices tab for example. How would these be different? I think we want -9999 instead of Not Reported?

Disregard, never used this tab.

[skbowd]

@lnowatzke @loriabendroth One more thing I noticed... pink text in admin/description. I believe these were highlighted because they weren't necessarily an event or meeting but were listed as a partner in the annual/quarterly progress reports. For instance, Miller Creek has USDA-NRCS listed as a partner in all years....2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018.

[lnowatzke]

@skbowd @loriabendroth I think we should leave the pink text in the spreadsheet (i.e. turn it black and leave as-is). We used these to indicate the number/diversity of partnerships that the coordinator developed for their project. I just skimmed it and don't have any issues with any of them. @loriabendroth if you agree, mark this task as done please.

[skbowd]

Changed to black. Only thing left is for Lori to sign off and close! :)

[loriabendroth]

Done, reviewed each tab once more. No more items needed.