programminghistorian / ph-submissions

The repository and website hosting the peer review process for new Programming Historian lessons
http://programminghistorian.github.io/ph-submissions
139 stars 114 forks source link

Visualizing data with R and ggplot2 #606

Open hawc2 opened 8 months ago

hawc2 commented 8 months ago

Programming Historian in English has received a proposal for a lesson, 'Visualizing data with R and ggplot2,' by @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui.

I have circulated this proposal for feedback within the English team. We have considered this proposal for:

We are pleased to have invited @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui to develop this Proposal into a Submission under the guidance of @semanticnoodles as editor.

The Submission package should include:

We ask @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui to share their Submission package with our Publishing team by email, copying in @semanticnoodles.

We've agreed a submission date of April. We ask @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui to contact us if they need to revise this deadline.

When the Submission package is received, our Publishing team will process the new lesson materials, and prepare a Preview of the initial draft. They will post a comment in this Issue to provide the locations of all key files, as well as a link to the Preview where contributors can read the lesson as the draft progresses.

If we have not received the Submission package by April, @semanticnoodles will attempt to contact @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui. If we do not receive any update, this Issue will be closed.

Our dedicated Ombudspersons are Ian Milligan (English), Silvia Gutiérrez De la Torre (español), Hélène Huet (français), and Luis Ferla (português) Please feel free to contact them at any time if you have concerns that you would like addressed by an impartial observer. Contacting the ombudspersons will have no impact on the outcome of any peer review.

semanticnoodles commented 8 months ago

I confirm @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui shared with me access to their repository containing all the required files, and that I handed them over to @anisa-hawes to allow the publishing team to generate the preview, thanks.

anisa-hawes commented 8 months ago

Hello Giulia @semanticnoodles, Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui,

Many thanks for sharing the lesson submission materials with me. I've now checked the Markdown file, and add some key elements of metadata. I've also checked the accompanying images and assets, ensuring each element meets our requirements.

You can find the key files here:

You can review a Preview of the lesson here:

--

A few initial notes:

anisa-hawes commented 8 months ago

Hello again Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui.

What's happening now?

Your lesson has been moved to the next phase of our workflow which is Phase 2: Initial Edit.

In this Phase, your editor Giulia @semanticnoodles will read your lesson, and provide some initial feedback. Giulia will post feedback and suggestions as a comment in this Issue, so that you can revise your draft in the following Phase 3: Revision 1.

%%{init: { 'logLevel': 'debug', 'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': {
              'cScale0': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel0': '#ffffff',
              'cScale1': '#882b4f', 'cScaleLabel1': '#ffffff',
              'cScale2': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel2': '#ffffff'
       } } }%%
timeline
Section Phase 1 <br> Submission
Who worked on this? : Publishing Manager (@anisa-hawes) 
All  Phase 1 tasks completed? : Yes
Section Phase 2 <br> Initial Edit
Who's working on this? : Editor (@semanticnoodles)  
Expected completion date? : April 20
Section Phase 3 <br> Revision 1
Who's responsible? : Authors (@rogorido + @nabsiddiqui) 
Expected timeframe? : ~30 days after feedback is received

Note: The Mermaid diagram above may not render on GitHub mobile. Please check in via desktop when you have a moment.

rogorido commented 8 months ago

@anisa-hawes Thanks for your comments. As for the tsv file: no, it is not required. It can be deleted.

I'll add the alternative captions. Thanks.

rogorido commented 7 months ago

I added captions and alt texts (10a6a9e1b0c9fa794637837338bd7a61b7f6c5d7), but Nabeel should take a look whether it looks 'Englishly' enough...

semanticnoodles commented 7 months ago

Hello @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui,

here follows my preliminary feedback; I am aware it is quite extensive, but I believe these indications could help you strengthen your tutorial. If you need any clarification, please do not hesitate to ask!

Overall feedback

In general, your tutorial provides valuable guidance on navigating and producing a wide range of visualisations, effectively walking through the various features of ggplot2. The piece meets the accessibility and inclusivity goals of the Programming Historian fairly well, and in most cases the language is easy to understand and straightforward. However, some elements need further work, mostly falling under two intertwined aspects discussed in the following paragraphs.

Usability: Enhancing the logical structure of the lesson

In my opinion, this is the most critical point to consider. The tutorial lacks a cohesive element to tie its components together and the organisation of the content could benefit from a more linear and less convoluted approach. The case study you propose (sister cities) seems to be just a tool to obtain a series of visualisations. This is fair enough, but it could benefit from further methodological contextualisation and unpacking: the people following your tutorial may not be historians not have a clear understanding of the methods you are using -- although they can be familiar with R.

In terms of improving the overall content, I think there are two possible directions for you to consider: either revising the content to follow a visualisation task-based narrative or placing more emphasis on the structure of the case study. The first option would privilege the visualisation tasks (but still require some methodological support for the case study), while the second would require you to generate stronger and sharper research questions from the case study, to be answered (at least in part) by the visualisation tasks. I think @nabsiddiqui did a very good job of structuring the content in the lesson Data Wrangling and Management in R, so I would recommend keeping that in mind as a reference.

The title of the proposal could benefit from being more specific - or at least mentioning the context of application. The table of contents looks unbalanced: the headings and their actual wording could be better aligned with the content they cover, and the nesting could be more linear.

You give very clear information about the concept of the grammar of graphics - this is really the cornerstone of understanding how ggplot2 is designed. I really appreciate you explaining this and including many useful resources, although I think they could be arranged more organically, instead of including relatively short hints throughout the tutorial, as they tend to overshadow the walkthrough steps on several occasions.

Sustainability: Critically reviewing the data analysis narrative

The dataset looks more than adequate for the visualisation tasks you have set as objectives, but the data narrative and its wording could benefit from further tuning. What you offer in this lesson is mostly visualisation of data distributions and there is little statistical testing involved. As your topic is sister cities, it makes perfect sense to talk about relationships, although what you observe are mostly trends or tendencies that you could try to explain through further research; sometimes you clearly point that out and sometimes it looks rather implicit. I think this is just a matter of fine-tuning the language, nothing more.

Section-specific feedback

Para stands for paragraph number; please refer to the preview generated by @anisa-hawes

Introduction, Lesson Goals and Data

ggplot2: General Overview

Sister cities in Europe

Loading Data with readr

Creating a bar graph

Other Geoms: Histograms, Distribution Plots and Boxplots

Manipulating the Look of Graphs

Scales: Colors, Legends, and Axes

Faceting a Graph

Themes: Changing Static Elements

Extending ggplot2 with Other Packages

Additional Resources

Format & style

Two quick comments on the form and style.

Thank you for the great work done so far!

rogorido commented 7 months ago

@semanticnoodles thanks for your extensive comments. I will have a look at the enhancements you're proposing in the next days.

anisa-hawes commented 7 months ago

What's happening now?

Hello Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui. Your lesson has been moved to the next phase of our workflow which is Phase 3: Revision 1.

This Phase is an opportunity for you to revise your draft in response to @semanticnoodles's initial feedback. You can make direct commits to your file here: /en/drafts/originals/visualizing-data-with-r-and-ggplot2.md. @charlottejmc or I are here to help if you encounter any practical problems!

When both of you + Giulia are happy with the revised draft, we will move forward to Phase 4: Open Peer Review.

%%{init: { 'logLevel': 'debug', 'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': {
              'cScale0': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel0': '#ffffff',
              'cScale1': '#882b4f', 'cScaleLabel1': '#ffffff',
              'cScale2': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel2': '#ffffff'
       } } }%%
timeline
Section Phase 2 <br> Initial Edit
Who worked on this? : Editor (@semanticnoodles) 
All  Phase 1 tasks completed? : Yes
Section Phase 3 <br> Revision 1
Who's working on this? : Authors (@rogorido + @nabsiddiqui)  
Expected completion date? : May 17
Section Phase 4 <br> Open Peer Review
Who's responsible? : Reviewers (TBC) 
Expected timeframe? : ~60 days after request is accepted

Note: The Mermaid diagram above may not render on GitHub mobile. Please check in via desktop when you have a moment.

semanticnoodles commented 6 months ago

Hello Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui, I hope you are doing well!

Just checking in with you about the draft revision (Phase 3 / Revision 1) as the deadline of the 17th of May has passed. If you need some extra time let me know approximately how much, so we can set up a new deadline -- and @anisa-hawes or @charlottejmc can update the Mermaid timeframe.

If you have doubts or need any clarification, please do not hesitate to keep in touch.

nabsiddiqui commented 6 months ago

Hello @semanticnoodles,

I have tried to rework a lot of the tutorial. I feel that changing some of the headings will make the flow more obvious. Let me see if it makes sense the way I have done it or if there should be additional changes. Here are some of what I reviewed based on your timeline. The rest I will leave to @rogorido unless he has an objection:

Introduction, Lesson Goals and Data

ggplot2: General Overview

Sister cities in Europe

Loading Data with readr

Creating a bar graph

Other Geoms: Histograms, Distribution Plots and Boxplots

Manipulating the Look of Graphs

Scales: Colors, Legends, and Axes

Faceting a Graph

Themes: Changing Static Elements

Extending ggplot2 with Other Packages

Additional Resources

Format & style

Two quick comments on the form and style.

Other

anisa-hawes commented 5 months ago

Thank you, @nabsiddiqui!

@semanticnoodles will review these revisions and advise if we are ready to move onwards to the next Phase of the workflow (which will be Phase 4 Open Peer Review). Giulia is away this week, returning on June 3rd.

In the meantime, @charlottejmc and I can help with ensuring that functions and arguments are typographically consistent. These are aspects we always check as part of typesetting at Phase 6, but we'll do a quick scan now so that this isn't a distraction for Reviewers.

charlottejmc commented 5 months ago

Hello @nabsiddiqui and @semanticnoodles,

I've made some adjustments to add backticks to functions, arguments and other parts of code, trying to stay consistent with our house style.

semanticnoodles commented 5 months ago

Hello everybody, I am back! While I was away I got the chance to go through the tutorial and I can say you did upgrade the lesson quite a lot. Brilliant work @nabsiddiqui and @rogorido -- and many many thanks to @charlottejmc and @anisa-hawes for their support!

I will take another quick reading as I think I spotted another couple of small things to fix, but I believe now it is almost ready to move onwards to Phase 4. Sorry for the slight delay in my answer -- I will get back to you in a few hours.🖥

semanticnoodles commented 5 months ago

It took longer than expected (hours became days..). Nevertheless, if @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui can quickly fix the elements in the list below I believe we can move to the open peer review (Phase 4). The most urgent is the first element, the following are about simple formalities/typos.

Thank you for the patience!

rogorido commented 5 months ago

@semanticnoodles (and @nabsiddiqui): I have already corrected all typos (I hope). And I have the correct dataset. But my question is: where should I exactly upload it?

Many thanks for your work!

charlottejmc commented 5 months ago

Hello @rogorido, thank you for making these corrections.

You can replace the current sistercities.csv file in your lesson's associated assets folder, here.

If you prefer, however, you could send the file directly to me (publishing.assistant[@]programminghistorian.org) and I can upload it for you.

Thank you!

rogorido commented 5 months ago

@charlottejmc Thanks for your answer. I have uplodaded it to the assets folder. I hope everything is OK now... (commit: 387fdd9)

anisa-hawes commented 5 months ago

Hello Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui,

What's happening now?

Your lesson has been moved to the next phase of our workflow which is Phase 4: Open Peer Review.

This phase is an opportunity for you to hear feedback from peers in the community.

Giulia @semanticnoodles will invite two reviewers to read your lesson/translation, test your code, and provide constructive feedback. In the spirit of openness, reviews will be posted as comments in this issue (unless you specifically request a closed review).

After both reviews, Giulia will summarise the suggestions to clarify your priorities in Phase 5: Revision 2.

%%{init: { 'logLevel': 'debug', 'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': {
              'cScale0': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel0': '#ffffff',
              'cScale1': '#882b4f', 'cScaleLabel1': '#ffffff',
              'cScale2': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel2': '#ffffff'
       } } }%%
timeline
Section Phase 3 <br> Revision 1
Who worked on this? : Authors (@rogorido + @nabsiddiqui)
All  Phase 3 tasks completed? : Yes
Section Phase 4 <br> Open Peer Review
Who's working on this? : Reviewers (@justinwigard + @regan008)
Expected completion date? : August 31
Section Phase 5 <br> Revision 2
Who's responsible? : Authors (@rogorido + @nabsiddiqui)
Expected timeframe? : ~30 days after editor's summary

Note: The Mermaid diagram above may not render on GitHub mobile. Please check in via desktop when you have a moment.

rogorido commented 5 months ago

@anisa-hawes Thanks. No problem with the comments being posted here.

semanticnoodles commented 4 months ago

Open Peer Review

During Phases 2 and 3, I provided initial feedback on this lesson, then worked with Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui, to complete a first round of revisions. In Phase 4 Open Peer Review, we invite feedback from others in our community.

Welcome to Justin Wigard @justinwigard and Amanda Regan @regan008 ! By participating in this peer review process, you are contributing to the creation of a useful and sustainable technical resource for the whole community. Thank you ✨ Please read the lesson, test the code, and post your review as a comment in this issue by August 31st.

Reviewer Guidelines:

A preview of the lesson:

Notes:

Anti-Harassment Policy

This is a statement of the Programming Historian's principles and sets expectations for the tone and style of all correspondence between reviewers, authors, editors, and contributors to our public forums.

Programming Historian in English is dedicated to providing an open scholarly environment that offers community participants the freedom to thoroughly scrutinize ideas, to ask questions, make suggestions, or request clarification, but also provides a harassment-free space for all contributors to the project, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age or religion, or technical experience.

We do not tolerate harassment or ad hominem attacks of community participants in any form. Participants violating these rules may be expelled from the community at the discretion of the editorial board. If anyone witnesses or feels they have been the victim of the above described activity, please contact our ombudsperson Dr Ian Milligan. Thank you for helping us to create a safe space.

nabsiddiqui commented 4 months ago

Wonderful! Thank you @semanticnoodles for organizing this.

Thank you also to @justinwigard and @regan008 for agreeing to serve as reviewers. I have enjoyed both of your research and scholarships and look forward to your comments. Please let me know if you need anything in the mean time.

regan008 commented 2 months ago

@semanticnoodles I'm running late with this, but I promise to get to it this week!

semanticnoodles commented 2 months ago

@semanticnoodles I'm running late with this, but I promise to get to it this week!

Hi @regan008, thanks for keeping us posted!

rogorido commented 2 months ago

@semanticnoodles I'm running late with this, but I promise to get to it this week!

Thanks, @regan008!

regan008 commented 2 months ago

@semanticnoodles Thanks again for asking me to review this -- it was a pleasure to read and engage with. @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui, I can't wait to assign this lesson to my own students. It is an excellent overview of the ggplot package and the concepts related to the Grammar of Graphics. Congratulations!

I highly recommend publication. I do think the lesson loses the reader slightly between paragraphs 56-60. I would recommend taking another look at those to see if they can be massaged to be a bit more in line with the skill level for the rest of the lesson. And lastly, I think perhaps in the geom section, the authors should briefly discuss line charts. I'm not sure the data will make that easy, but I think many readers will be historians who will want to look at change over time in their charts.

Here are some more detailed line-level comments:

Please let me know if you have any questions or need anything else from me. I look forward to promoting this lesson once it is live!

semanticnoodles commented 2 months ago

Thank you, Amanda @regan008, for your insightful review and enthusiasm! I will hold off on posting my wrap-up until both the reviews are published, but this is excellent!

justinwigard commented 2 months ago

Overall, I think this tutorial is excellent. I’m likewise hoping to assign this tutorial in my own classes, and even learned a few new ways to think about my own approach to working with data!

I highly recommend publication. I have divided my review into three brief sections based on the Programming Historian review guidelines: Surface, Functional, and Code. I know my review has a lot of little items, but they’re primarily lightweight and surface, aimed at just tightening up an already streamlined tutorial. Take or leave as needed, I trust y’all’s judgement.

One further point I wanted to highlight: while working through the code, I noticed that my own visualizations differed slightly from those in the tutorial, whether that was due to a slightly updated dataset or due to something on my side. I flagged those in the Functional section and the Code section primarily, just to get a second set of eyes on them – functionally, everything works, it’s just a few odd visual discrepancies! The attached Appendix files demonstrate what visualizations are happening on my side.

What a great submission. Please let me know if I can help further, and so looking forward to sharing it when things are completed!

Surface:

Functional:

Code:

Assorted thoughts

Wigard_ProgrammingHistorian_AppendixA_2024 Wigard_ProgrammingHistorian_AppendixB_2024 Wigard_ProgrammingHistorian_AppendixC_2024

semanticnoodles commented 2 months ago

Thank you so much Justin @justinwigard for such a detailed review, it is fantastic. I cannot wait to get started wrapping up the brilliant points you and @regan008 raised!

nabsiddiqui commented 2 months ago

Thank you @justinwigard and @regan008. @rogorido and I will begin working on this soon.

rogorido commented 2 months ago

@justinwigard and @regan008 Thank you very much for the detailed corrections!

semanticnoodles commented 1 month ago

Hi @rogorido and @nabsiddiqui, here is my review/feedback summary (it took a while); thanks a million @regan008 and @justinwigard for all the food for thought and complementary feedback you provided! Both of you highly recommend the lesson for publication 🎉🎉🎉: @regan008 appreciates particularly the explanations about the tibbles and the Grammar of Graphics; on the other hand, @justinwigard appreciates the engaging tone of the lesson and the way it explains the potential of ggplot2.

Here is a quick recap of the core elements you highlight -- that I recommend @rogorido & @nabsiddiqui to go through carefully.

Notes on Amanda’s feedback

@regan008 makes some detailed comments about typos, potential clarifications (e.g., on plotting packages, coordinate systems), and a suggestion to link out where ECDF is mentioned, clarifying the contents of para 56-60. She also notes that while maps are mentioned, the lesson does not cover them explicitly (might be a chance to link to Using Geospatial Data to Inform Historical Research in R).

There may be an opportunity to use additional line charts, as @regan008 suggests, but requiring further transformations/brand new additions, e.g. using long/lat or population size between sister cities. The structure of the lesson works and I would like you to prioritise the refinements she suggests rather than adding brand new extensions. She makes a good point, but please only add additional data filtering/visualisation if you have time to devote to the task.

Notes on Justin’s feedback

@justinwigard highlights a number of areas where the lesson is already strong, as well as offering thoughtful suggestions for improvement under the four sections he articulated. Surely the minor typographical and grammatical suggestions other than the consistency of the sister cities spelling and the geoms require your attention.

On a functional level, he notes that some additional context could be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the tidyverse or Wikidata. He noted that providing counter-examples alongside some of the figures, like Figure 6, could help readers compare different cases, as well as adding more references on the choice of binwidth size (very often a rule of thumb, in my experience). He additionally suggests listing the tidyverse packages explicitly, and including a link to Wikidata, making more evident the line about the dataset download. He also suggests incorporating a screenshot to show how the tibble should appear after loading (I believe I suggested you to consider something similar previously, like running head(eudata), it might be really worth getting a screenshot). Many more technical insights from his side follow, and I suggest you have a look at them carefully.

Again, as I noted in Amanda's feedback, please focus on refinement/consolidation first, and then consider expanding your lesson further.

A few extras

Here are a few extra comments from my side, mostly technically oriented. Following @justinwigard notes I ran all the code to see if I could provide some extra technical feedback (using R version 4.3.0 [2023-04-21] on my RStudio version Cranberry Hibiscus, 2024.9.0.375).

> colnames(eudata)
 [1] "X"                       
 [2] "origincityLabel"         
 [3] "origincountry"           
 [4] "originlat"               
 [5] "originlong"              
 [6] "originpopulation"        
 [7] "sistercityLabel"         
 [8] "destinationlat"          
 [9] "destinationlong"         
[10] "destinationpopulation"   
[11] "destination_countryLabel"
[12] "dist"                    
[13] "eu"                      
[14] "samecountry"             
[15] "typecountry

A huge thank you for all your patience and hard work!🌟

anisa-hawes commented 1 month ago

Hello Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui,

What's happening now?

Your lesson has been moved to the next phase of our workflow which is Phase 5: Revision 2.

This phase is an opportunity for you to revise your draft in response to the peer reviewers' feedback.

Giulia @semanticnoodles has summarised their suggestions, but feel free to ask questions if you are unsure.

Please make revisions via direct commits to your file: /en/drafts/originals/visualizing-data-with-r-and-ggplot2.md. @charlottejmc and I are here to help if you encounter any difficulties.

When you and Giulia are all happy with the revised draft, the Managing Editor @hawc2 will read it through and provide additional feedback/suggestions as necessary before we move forward to Phase 6: Sustainability + Accessibility.

%%{init: { 'logLevel': 'debug', 'theme': 'dark', 'themeVariables': {
              'cScale0': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel0': '#ffffff',
              'cScale1': '#882b4f', 'cScaleLabel1': '#ffffff',
              'cScale2': '#444444', 'cScaleLabel2': '#ffffff'
       } } }%%
timeline
Section Phase 4 <br> Open Peer Review
Who worked on this? : Reviewers (@justinwigard + @regan008)
All  Phase 4 tasks completed? : Yes
Section Phase 5 <br> Revision 2
Who's working on this? : Authors (@rogorido + @nabsiddiqui)
Expected completion date? : October 24
Section Phase 6 <br> Sustainability + Accessibility
Who's responsible? : Publishing Team
Expected timeframe? : 7~21 days

Note: The Mermaid diagram above may not render on GitHub mobile. Please check in via desktop when you have a moment.

rogorido commented 1 month ago

@semanticnoodles thanks for your review/feedback.We will make all corrections in the next days.

rogorido commented 1 month ago

@regan008 and @justinwigard: Many thanks again for your comments and corrections. I have added many of them (cdfc89f413a9049cdd7a2120b410e9189238d1a8) and @nabsiddiqui and I should think about two or three changes you are proposing which have maybe more profound consequences for the tutorial.

In any case, just some comments:

@justinwigard:

  1. the differences between your graphs and the graph in the tutorial come (as far as I can see it) from the fact that we use sample_frac() which takes a random sample out of the data. We should add a warning for the reader...
  2. As of your question: Would it be helpful to provide a counter-example to Germany here? How should we read Portugal’s relationship, or Bulgaria, to sister-cities? No. we give the reader some hints to make analysis, but this is not a tutorial about sister-cities relationships, but about using ggplot2 for analyzing/visualizing them.

@regan008:

  1. as of other packages: plotly was created mainly for python and has nowadays extensions for R, julia, etc. As far as I know, it is not very much used in R in comparison to 'native' solutions like ggplot (see here) the number of stars in github for instance). dygraphs is also rather a interface to the dygraphs javascript library and nothing 'R-native';
  2. you are right: a line chart to show change over time would be the best for historians. Unfortunately it is not easy (if it is possible at all) to extract such kind of information from wikidata for the data we are working with.
  3. You are right about maps, gis, etc. I have tried to make explicit that we do not cover maps in this lesson (maybe can someone points to a lesson about this topic in PH?).

In any case, we will still work in some on your comments (@semanticnoodles). Many thanks again.

anisa-hawes commented 1 month ago

Thank you for your work so far, Igor @rogorido and Nabeel @nabsiddiqui ✨

Please let Giulia @semanticnoodles know when you feel you've completed the revisions. She will read through the draft again to confirm that she's satisfied with the suggestions integrated.

rogorido commented 1 month ago

@anisa-hawes yes will do it!

nabsiddiqui commented 1 month ago

Hello @rogorido, @anisa-hawes, and @semanticnoodles,

Igor and I have added our edits, and I believe that we are all set to move to the next stage now.

anisa-hawes commented 1 month ago

Thank you, @nabsiddiqui and @rogorido.

Giulia @semanticnoodles will read through your revisions later this week, and advise if she feels any further adjustments are needed.

After that, Alex will read it through and share additional feedback/suggestions as necessary.

When both Giulia and Alex are happy, we will move forward to Phase 6: Sustainability + Accessibility which will begin with copyediting 🙂

rogorido commented 1 month ago

@anisa-hawes OK, many thanks!

semanticnoodles commented 1 week ago

Hello @rogorido & @nabsiddiqui,

I apologise for the delay in posting this feedback. I have been going through the whole lesson again with @justinwigard and @regan008 comments at hand. I think you have done a wonderful job of polishing the lesson, we are almost ready for Phase 6! 🎉

Please review the following points and we will be ready to move on - looking forward to seeing this brilliant lesson of yours available to the PH audience!

General Comments

Paragraph-specific comments

rogorido commented 1 week ago

@semanticnoodles Thanks a lot for your comments. We will work on your corrections and I hope we will be ready in 2-3 days.

nabsiddiqui commented 2 days ago

Hello @semanticnoodles. @rogorido and I have finished our edits. I have set a seed in the R code to allow for reproducibility. I have also updated the images to reflect the sample data the user will get due to the seed.

For the title, we were thinking perhaps "From Historical Data to Visual Analytics: The Grammar of Graphics in Practice"? I don't know what would be needed to change the title since the folders are based on the title. I am sure @anisa-hawes can help. Look forward to moving this ahead.

anisa-hawes commented 2 days ago

Thank you, @nabsiddiqui. Yes, of course we can help with the practicalities of adjustments to any file and directory names.

However, I think what Giulia @semanticnoodles is aiming towards is finding a title that is more specific. Fundamentally, we want to help readers find lessons that meet their learning goals. A clear title facilitates discovery through search, and offers a quick, basic sense of what can be learned.

Reviewing our lesson directory, I think the most successful titles generally comprise:

The current title is: Visualizing Data with R and ggplot2 Giulia has suggested the subtle adjustment: Exploring and Visualizing Data in R with ggplot2

I was wondering whether your title could clarify what kind of data readers are handling with these methods? The concept of Sister Cities is mentioned but what are you describing in general: demographic data? geographical/spatial data? ('mixed' data? - is the fact that you are selecting methods to visualise a range of different data types the key? 🤔)

My sense is that an effective lesson title is usually simple and succinct. So, I think I'd suggest avoiding the semicolon and compound structure (more often encountered for an expanded research article title) and focus on providing straight-forward keys to the lesson.

rogorido commented 5 hours ago

@anisa-hawes After talking with @nabsiddiqui I think we stick to the title proposed by Giulia.

hawc2 commented 2 hours ago

to @anisa-hawes' point, it would be nice to clarify what type of data this lesson teaches how to visualize - would it be fair to label it "Demographic Data"?

nabsiddiqui commented 4 minutes ago

I think it is more mixed data since some of it is about the cities themselves and some of it is about the demographics of the city.

I like "Exploring and Visualizing Mixed Data in R with ggplot2".

@rogorido is this ok with you?