search

lavs10 / STA9750-2024-FALL

0 stars 0 forks source link

STA9750 <GITHUB_USERNAME> MiniProject #01 #2

Open lavs10 opened 1 month ago

lavs10 commented 1 month ago

Hi @michaelweylandt!

I've uploaded my work for MiniProject #01 - check it out!

https://.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

lavs10 commented 1 month ago

https://lavs10.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

michaelweylandt commented 1 month ago

Link doesn't work. Are you sure you uploaded the rendered file in the docs folder? I don't see it.

lavs10 commented 1 month ago

Hello Professor - does it work now? I added to the docs again.

michaelweylandt commented 1 month ago

Yes - it seems to be working. I look forward to reading it.

(But you need to check this for yourself! I won't always be staying up late to help folks on future assignments.)

lavs10 commented 1 month ago

Definitely, Professor! I will make sure to re-check moving forward.

michaelweylandt commented 1 month ago

Thanks @lavs10 !

Peer Feedback:

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project #01. Please review @lavs10's submission for this mini-project and provide peer feedback.

Using the rubric at https://michael-weylandt.com/STA9750/miniprojects/mini01.html#rubric, please grade their submission out of a total of 50 points.

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 @lavs10, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

@lavs10: please engage fully with your peers. They are here to help you!

Submission URL should be: https://lavs10.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

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

Thanks! @michaelweylandt

CC: @charles-ramirez

bleuuuz commented 1 month ago

Hi Lavanya,

I hope you're well,

Written Communication: 3/5

Project Skeleton: 1/5

Formatting & Display: 1/5

Code Quality: 2/5

Data Preparation: 5/5

Thanks for sharing!

Bleuuuz

On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:35 AM Michael Weylandt @.***> wrote:

Thanks @lavs10 https://github.com/lavs10 !

Peer Feedback:

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project #1 https://github.com/lavs10/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/1. Please review @lavs10 https://github.com/lavs10's submission for this mini-project and provide peer feedback.

Using the rubric at https://michael-weylandt.com/STA9750/miniprojects/mini01.html#rubric, please grade their submission out of a total of 50 points.

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 @lavs10 https://github.com/lavs10, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

@lavs10 https://github.com/lavs10: please engage fully with your peers. They are here to help you!

Submission URL should be: https://lavs10.github.io/STA9750-2024-FALL/mp01.html

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

Thanks! @michaelweylandt https://github.com/michaelweylandt

CC: @charles-ramirez https://github.com/charles-ramirez

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/lavs10/STA9750-2024-FALL/issues/2#issuecomment-2377310913, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BK75UXGPD27YFLPAT267OMDZYQST5AVCNFSM6AAAAABO35CLJ2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDGNZXGMYTAOJRGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

thanhtdao922 commented 1 month ago

Hi @lavs10 !

I just looked through your project, and here are my comments.

Written Communication: 2/10

This doesn’t read like a report, and more so like a question / answer assignment. It’s also difficult to determine the answers to some of the questions, as you rely on the data dump output rather than writing out the answer yourself. Next time, I would add more details and analysis to make this a stronger report.

Project Skeleton: 1/10

Unfortunately, you didn’t complete tasks 1 through 4 (from what I can see), and didn’t build any tables. Additionally, for task 5, your answers weren’t clear, with there being a data dump output from your code. To remedy this, I would recommend you write out the output in a sentence, along with some form of analysis.

Formatting & Display: 1/10

Unfortunately, you didn’t include any tables in your report, and no code was displayed for me to determine if there was an error there. For next time, maybe check to see if the code for the table display was commented out, or forgotten? Also, your headings ended up being just regular text that merged with your analysis. To create headings, you should use hashtags.

Code Quality: 2/10

Despite your code running for the questions for the “Table Summarization” task, I can’t see any code. I recommend using backticks in Markdown or an echo function to show your code.

Data Preparation: 10/10

I would give you a 16/50. Thanh

bleuuuz commented 1 month ago

Hello Lavanya,

Fixing my scoring to be out of 10 instead of five.

Written Communication: 5/10 Your text explains the overall concept of the project well but doesn't go much further than that. Perhaps you could add more context between your chunks of code so it reads more like a report rather than an explanation followed by a large chunk of code and a conclusion.

Project Skeleton: 1/10 Your project is missing quite a few tasks such as creating the two data tables and tasks #3 & #4. I would recommend adding context or titles to your tasks so that you can see which ones you may have missed.

Formatting & Display: 1/10 I didn't see any tables in your report and there was no visible code to show me that an error may have caused it. I would recommend task headers to make it clear which tasks have been completed. Perhaps it was commented out?

Code Quality: 3/10 Your code runs well for the questions you answered but readers can't see the code. I would recommend using the echo function to display the code you used for your website.

Data Preparation: 10/10

Grade: 20/50

Thanks again for sharing.

mt1536 commented 1 month ago

Hi @lavs10 !

Thank you for submitting:

-Written communication: 6/10. Although the project shows a fair conclusion, there is a lot of opportunity to add more context and details to the work leading up to the conclusion. For example, there were multiple steps/lines of code you had to make to reach the conclusion; you could have added details and explanations about those.

-Project Skeleton: 1/10. The project is missing the tasks section and the table during the data preparation stage. Also, the introduction could have been coded as a title/subtitle.

-Formatting & Display : 3/10: Results were provided without context or explanation. A better result could have been achieved by providing more details about each step performed

-Code Quality: 3/10. It seems the code work. I think for this kind of project you should display the code using the {r functionality

-Data Preparation: 10/10

Total: 23/50

Don't be discouraged. I know how challenging this is, but you can improve with hard work.

Regards, mt1536

YantingZhao11 commented 1 month ago

Hi @lavs10,

Please see my comments below:

Written Communication: 4/10 Needs more context between code sections for better flow.

Project Skeleton: 2/10 Missing key tasks and data tables.

Formatting & Display: 3/10 Lacks proper tables and task headers.

Code Quality: 3/10 Code works but isn’t visible.

Data Preparation: 10/10

Total Score: 22/50

Best, Yanting

charles-ramirez commented 1 month ago

Hi @lavs10,

Please see my comments below:

Written Communication: 4/10 Needs more context between code sections for better flow.

Project Skeleton: 2/10 Missing key tasks and data tables.

Formatting & Display: 3/10 Lacks proper tables and task headers.

Code Quality: 3/10 Code works but isn’t visible.

Data Preparation: 10/10

Total Score: 22/50

Best, Yanting

Hi, @YantingZhao11, 



My name is Charles, and I’m your TA for this semester. This is a good start. I’m going to encourage you to re-do your peer review for @lavs10. Please share additional constructive feedback in each section of your peer review while closely following the rubric for MP01.   Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you!

YantingZhao11 commented 1 month ago

Hi @lavs10, Please see my comments below: Written Communication: 4/10 Needs more context between code sections for better flow. Project Skeleton: 2/10 Missing key tasks and data tables. Formatting & Display: 3/10 Lacks proper tables and task headers. Code Quality: 3/10 Code works but isn’t visible. Data Preparation: 10/10 Total Score: 22/50 Best, Yanting

Hi, @YantingZhao11, 



My name is Charles, and I’m your TA for this semester. This is a good start. I’m going to encourage you to re-do your peer review for @lavs10. Please share additional constructive feedback in each section of your peer review while closely following the rubric for MP01.   Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you! Hi,

Please see the additional feedback below. Thanks!

Written Communication: 5/10 You’ve explained the overall concept, but the report could use more detail between code sections to make it feel cohesive. Adding some explanation or transitions between steps would improve the readability.

Project Skeleton: 2/10 It seems like a few key tasks were missed, such as creating data tables and completing some outlined instructions. It would be great if you include it.

Formatting & Display: 3/10 The display lacks tables and section headers, which would make it easier to follow. Displaying your code would help!

Code Quality: 4/10 The code works fine, but it’s not visible to readers, making it harder to follow along.

Data Preparation: 10/10

Total Score: 24/50

Best, Yanting