All the files look alright and sorted properly. Just a quick thing I noticed looking at the term paper rubric, but we were told to have our paper.qmd files in outputs/paper/paper.qmd. I am not sure if this is a strict requirement since it is just the creation of a paper directory and moving the files inside, but this is a quick change you could make.
General Formatting
Going through your paper alongside the rubric, it is evident that your paper is really well done. All of your citations in line, documentation, labels, etc. were completed. In other words, in terms of formatting, you followed the criteria to a tee. If I had to be nitpicky and find any suggestions, I would say to create a new page for the references, since they begin at the end of page 8, splitting the list into two pages.
Suggestion:
Start the references on a new page, like one would do in an essay.
I believe inserting a page break can be done with \newpage just like in LaTeX, but this may not be a mandatory change because the example past papers do not have a page break for their references page either.
Introduction
The main source public transportation of public transportation in the city of Toronto is the
TTC (Toronto Transit Commission). The most common methods of this public transportation
is subways and buses. For people who frequently use these methods, delays are common and
expected (Westoll 2023). So much so that leaving early is leaving on time.
These sentences feel a bit abrupt, and they do not necessarily flow well together. This segment could probably be condensed into two sentences to convey your main point in a smoother read. It's important to make note of this since these are the introductory sentences to your paper.
Whether you, the reader, may be a commuter or not,...
I think that this style of tone is a bit informal for the paper and research we are trying to convey. I would replace this sentence and remove the part where you address the reader
Data
SUbway Delay...
First Line on the Data section, there is a slight typo, with the Subway 'U' being capitalized.
Data was
Second paragraph on the Data section, it would be a better read if you started with 'The Data' or 'This Data'.
Datasets
The representation of the datasets were done very well, with proper labels and a great follow-up explanation.
Graphs
The graphs were done very well, I liked how you separated them with colour to contrast the data.
If I had to make a suggestion, I would label the graphs for better clarity, even if its purpose is described in the following paragraph. It would allow for the reader to know what is going on in the graph without having to read the proceeding paragraph to find out.
Data: 2.5 By Line
There seems to be a 'Other' line "transit line" in the graph that is not elaborated on. Maybe you can clarify this in the next revision? Is this supposed to represent a shuttle bus? And is this significant enough that it should even be included in the graph?
Conclusion
Good conclusion and summarizing the data analyzed and reiterating your introduction's key points.
Files / Scripts
refrences.bib typo in the naming
The paper.qmd is well done, and it shows that you processed the data well prior in your scripts.
Your processing in your scripts were formatted and separated well between each 'step'.
Overall your work on this paper was well done. I didn't have much to criticize on your chosen dataset as well as the processing and visualizing of your cleaned data. The only real critiques I had were with your grammar, where you had some slip ups in the naming schemes as well as conveying the correct tone.
Peer Review 1
File Structure
All the files look alright and sorted properly. Just a quick thing I noticed looking at the term paper rubric, but we were told to have our paper.qmd files in
outputs/paper/paper.qmd. I am not sure if this is a strict requirement since it is just the creation of apaperdirectory and moving the files inside, but this is a quick change you could make.General Formatting
Going through your paper alongside the rubric, it is evident that your paper is really well done. All of your citations in line, documentation, labels, etc. were completed. In other words, in terms of formatting, you followed the criteria to a tee. If I had to be nitpicky and find any suggestions, I would say to create a new page for the references, since they begin at the end of page 8, splitting the list into two pages.
Suggestion:
\newpagejust like in LaTeX, but this may not be a mandatory change because the example past papers do not have a page break for their references page either.Introduction
These sentences feel a bit abrupt, and they do not necessarily flow well together. This segment could probably be condensed into two sentences to convey your main point in a smoother read. It's important to make note of this since these are the introductory sentences to your paper.
I think that this style of tone is a bit informal for the paper and research we are trying to convey. I would replace this sentence and remove the part where you address the reader
Data
First Line on the Data section, there is a slight typo, with the Subway 'U' being capitalized.
Second paragraph on the Data section, it would be a better read if you started with 'The Data' or 'This Data'.
Datasets
The representation of the datasets were done very well, with proper labels and a great follow-up explanation.
Graphs
The graphs were done very well, I liked how you separated them with colour to contrast the data. If I had to make a suggestion, I would label the graphs for better clarity, even if its purpose is described in the following paragraph. It would allow for the reader to know what is going on in the graph without having to read the proceeding paragraph to find out.
Data: 2.5 By Line
There seems to be a 'Other' line "transit line" in the graph that is not elaborated on. Maybe you can clarify this in the next revision? Is this supposed to represent a shuttle bus? And is this significant enough that it should even be included in the graph?
Conclusion
Good conclusion and summarizing the data analyzed and reiterating your introduction's key points.
Files / Scripts
refrences.bibtypo in the naming The paper.qmd is well done, and it shows that you processed the data well prior in your scripts. Your processing in your scripts were formatted and separated well between each 'step'.Overall your work on this paper was well done. I didn't have much to criticize on your chosen dataset as well as the processing and visualizing of your cleaned data. The only real critiques I had were with your grammar, where you had some slip ups in the naming schemes as well as conveying the correct tone.