STA9750 <plnrbrt> MiniProject #01

[plnrbrt]

Hi @michaelweylandt!

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

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

[michaelweylandt]

Thanks @plnrbrt !

Peer Feedback:

• @Victor-Louie
• @Slyastrologer
• @SethKauf
• @cliu98

It is now time for the peer feedback round for Mini-Project #01. Please review @plnrbrt'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 @plnrbrt, but you are of course welcome to initiate a discussion.

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

Submission URL should be: https://plnrbrt.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

[SethKauf]

Hi @plnrbrt ,

Very nice project. I thought it did a good job stepping through the questions and answers for the most part. Here's my breakdown:

Written Communication: 8/10 The questions are all set up to be answered, then the answer is usually given in an easy-to-read manner. The flow to this project is sometimes undone by two code-related things:

1. Random, unnecessary code outputs. One of the first things we see on the project landing page is your installation of the tidyverse package and the output from that. When writing your code blocks, be sure to include arguments in your Quarto Markdown such as {r message = False}.
2. Breaking the code blocks up too much: markdown that should have been comments were instead used as markdown, which breaks up the flow of the project. Instead of

Loading required package1: if(!require("<PACKAGE1>")) install.packages("<PACKAGE1>")

Loading required package2: if(!require("<PACKAGE2>")) install.packages("<PACKAGE2>")

Move the Markdown into a code comment and keep the cell together:

# Loading required package1
if(!require("<PACKAGE1>")) install.packages("<PACKAGE1>")

# Loading required package2
if(!require("<PACKAGE2>")) install.packages("<PACKAGE2>")

and keep this code block together with the other ones that follow it that are all part of the same/a similar process.

Project Skeleton: 10/10 The code runs from top-to-bottom and is used to answer the instructor's questions.

Formatting & Display: 7/10 This was done well for the most part. Besides what I mentioned in the Written Communication about unnecessary code outputs, although I really like your usage of the knitr library and its kable() function, however, the tables needed to be formatted a lot better. When it displays the total_VRM in Task 3 Q1 for example, see if you could format the number to display with commas, the same way you had it in the Markdown. I would especially recommend it for Task 4 Q3 where you have a whole table of numbers without any break. My biggest issue related to this though was Task 3 Q4 -- unless there is a specific reason to have numbers in Scientific Notation, you really should avoid having data display in it.

Code Quality: 9/10 Your R code is really good for the most part and gets to the point usually (though there is some repetitiveness). You make good use of comments, though there could have been more. You had multiple library/package import locations when you really only need to do it once in any given project file.

Data Preparation: 10/10 N/A

Overall: 44/50

I really liked your project, especially how you laid out and answered the questions. I think if you clean up your code blocks and especially their outputs, this is a 50/50.

[cliu98]

Hi @plnrbrt

Here is the breakdown for my feedback.

Written Communication: 9/10 I specifically enjoyed your conclusion sections, I thought this was a smart way to address the analysis at hand. The only thing I would mention is that you can suppress unnecessary outputs in the code blocks such as warnings and messages. Within the code block you can include {R, message = FALSE, warning = FALSE} to hide irrelevant outputs, which would tidy up your report.

Project Skeleton: 10/10

Formatting & Display: 9/10 The only thing I would suggest is creating some break between the table and the following question. The way its formatted is slightly confusing to look at since it jumps straight from the question, the code output table and straight to the next question. If there is a visual break, this makes it easier for the reader to know which question the table belongs to.

Code Quality: 10/10

Data Preparation: 10/10

Total: 48/50

[Victor-Louie]

Written Communication - 9 Project Skeleton - 10 Formatting & Display - 9 Code Quality - 10 Data prep - 10 Total: 48

I suggest explaining the code in blocks rather than answering the question. This would help guide the user with information to explain the questions.