STA/OPR 9750 Katariasiddhi MiniProject #03

[katariasiddhi]

Hi @michaelweylandt!

https://katariasiddhi.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp04.html

[michaelweylandt]

Link doesn’t work - did you mean mp03.html?

[katariasiddhi]

https://katariasiddhi.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp04.html

[michaelweylandt]

Thanks @katariasiddhi !

Peer Feedback:

• @nikitagtm
• @Gautam-1-R
• @plnrbrt
• @haolinnn

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project 03. Please review @katariasiddhi's submission for this mini-project and provide peer feedback.

Using the rubric at https://michael-weylandt.com/STA9750/miniprojects/mini03.html#rubric, please grade their submission out of a total of 50 points. Note that this rubric is slightly different than that used for Mini-Projects 01 and 02.

For each of the five categories, please give them a separate score and provide a total (sum) score across the entire assignment. Feel free to assign extra credit if you feel it is warranted (following the rubric).

If you give a score of less than 5 for any category, please provide a suggestion for improvement. (You can also give suggestions for any element they did well - more feedback is always great!)

As you go through this peer feedback exercise, think about what you particularly like about this submission and how you can incorporate that approach in your future work. If something is particularly insightful or creative, give some kudos!

Evaluators: This should take you around 15 minutes per peer feedback. You are not required to engage in substantial back-and-forth with @katariasiddhi, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

@katariasiddhi: please engage fully with your peers. They are here to help you!

Submission URL should be: https://katariasiddhi.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp03.html

Feel free to link to other repos, the course documentation, or other useful examples.

Thanks! @michaelweylandt

CC: @charles-ramirez

[nikitagtm]

Congratulations @katariasiddhi for completing your Mini03.

What I Liked:

Introduction of the project: The introduction is clear and provides a good overview of the project’s objectives.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Project Skeleton : The project does not fully answer all the questions outlined in the objectives of the project.

Formatting & Display: The maps do not display Hawaii and Alaska.

Code Presentation : It would be make your project more readable if you remove unnecessary messages such as the Attaching package: 'dplyr' and masking warnings, you can suppress these messages in your R script by using the suppressPackageStartupMessages()

Written Communication: 7/10 Project Skeleton: 6/10 Formatting & Display: 7/10 Code Quality: 7/10 Data Preparation: 10/10

Total Score: 37/50

[haolinnn]

Hi @katariasiddhi

Written communication: 8/10 I like the introduction, project goals, and project structures that can give me a clear overview of this project. I take points off because I think it would be better if you can write some explanations about the data.

project skeleton: 5/10 Missing some tasks and does not answer all the questions asked.

Formatting & display: 6/10 The map does not display Hawaii and Alaska. And I suggest that you can fold the code section using following code if necessary so that it can more organized.

#| code-fold: true
#| code-summary: "Show the code"

Code Quality: 7/10 Data preparation: 10/10

Overall, 36/50, Keep going!

[Gautam-1-R]

Hi @katariasiddhi

Great work on Mini Project

Written Communication: 8/10 The report is clear and well-structured. Adding short explanations alongside results would really strengthen understanding.

Project Structure: 9/10 Well-organized, meets requirements. A short introduction or summary would add context.

Formatting & Display: 8/10 The visuals are informative and clean. The addition of tables would allow key findings to be more readily digested.

Code Quality: 9/10 Code is neat, organized, and effective. Additional comments would make it clear to readers.

Data Preparation: 10/10 Thorough data preparation and good attention to detail are evident.

Total: 44/50

[plnrbrt]

Hi @katariasiddhi Great job on your attempt to Mini Project 3! I really like how you introduce the subject. The steps of the project are clear and we have the context. As haloinnn mentioned, your page would look more clean and pleasing to read if you fold your code. That way we can focus on your insights and visuals. Also some of the tasks 7 is missing and it would have been nice to have some phrases to explain your results. Written Communication: 7/10 Project Skeleton: 6/10 Formatting & Display: 6/10 Code Quality: 7/10 Data Preparation: 10/10

Total: 36/50