[x] I confirm that I have no COIs with reviewing this work, meaning that there is no relationship with the product or the product's authors or affiliated institutions that could influence or be perceived to influence the outcome of the review (if you are unsure whether you have a conflict, please speak to your supervisor before starting your review).
[x] No Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is included
[x] No other sensitive information such as data base passwords are included
General checks
[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file?
[x] Disclaimer: Does the repository have the USGS-required provisional Disclaimer?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of software authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Does the repository have a code.json file?
Documentation
[x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems)?
[x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support? This information could be found in the README, CONTRIBUTING, or DESCRIPTION sections of the documentation.
[x] References: When present, do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
Functionality
[x] Installation: Does installation succeed as outlined in the documentation?
[x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)return np.arange(start, stop, step)
[x] Automated tests: Do unit tests cover essential functions of the software and a reasonable range of inputs and conditions? Do all tests pass when run locally?
[x] Packaging guidelines: Does the software conform to the applicable packaging guidelines? R packaging guidelines here; Python packaging guidelines here
Review Comments
Overall: The package runs smoothly overall and is easy to use. Documentation is thorough for standard use, and the examples provide quality details on how to fit a variety of rating curves with different fitting models and methods. Minor bugs were found and corrected by the reviewer. However, a few issues need to be addressed. They are listed at the end of the comment list.
Security: The software meets the security review and has no PII or private info.
General Checks: The package passes all general checks by having all required files or statements
Documentation: Package has thorough documentation for easy use. It includes installation instructions, quality examples showing the package's functionality, and guidelines for how to contribute.
Functionality: The package installed without any problems and met all claims after a few bugs were corrected.
NEEDS ADDRESSED: a bug still exists in the plotting functionality that needs addressed (see Issue #25).
NEEDS ADDRESSED: The Background and Implementation docs pages needs to be proofread/edited for consistency. For example, the LaTeX style did not get correctly rendered.
Reviewer checklist source statement
This checklist combines elements of the rOpenSci review guidelines and the Journal of Open Source Science (JOSS) review checklist: it has been modified for use with USGS software releases.
Review checklist for @ratingcurve
Background information for reviewers here
Please check off boxes as applicable, and elaborate in comments below.
Conflict of interest
Adherence to Fundamental Science Practices
Security Review
General checks
Documentation
Functionality
Review Comments
Reviewer checklist source statement
This checklist combines elements of the rOpenSci review guidelines and the Journal of Open Source Science (JOSS) review checklist: it has been modified for use with USGS software releases.