Open jmcrey opened 5 years ago
@jmcrey Awesome! I thank you for your evaluation. To be honest, I thought I that after submission, I was going to be able to go back on forth with the project (amendments wise), and so I have done it as soon as I could (4-5 hours) and submitted right away. I am pretty happy with the score I got with that being said!
Again, thanks for your efforts, and I wish you all the best as well!
Rubric Score
Criteria 1: Valid Python Code
Criteria 2: Implementation of Project Requirements
percent_difference
andfind_text_similarity
functions). Great job!Criteria 3: Software Architecture
build_frequency_table
could have been significantly simplified if it expected the output of theprepared_text
function (covered more here). Otherwise, each function was very well done and used for its own purpose. Nice job!Criteria 4: Uses Python Language Features
zip
function in thebuild_frequency_table
). Great job!Criteria 5: Produces Accurate Output
Overall Score: 19/20
Honestly, this project did a great job! It produced accurate output; it included helpful comments in the code; it followed Python's best practices; and it utilized Python's built-in functionality very well.
One thing it could have done better is simplification -- many of the functions did not require the length of code produced. Often, this specific correction gets better with experience; but, to quicken the pace on simplifying functions, simply answer two questions for every function produced: "How do I combine functionality? and "Is every line of code necessary?". For the
get_average_sentence_length
function, not every line of code was necessary (covered here). Twofor
loops could have been removed. For thebuild_frequency_table
function, we could have combined functionality by ensuring it accepted input from theprepared_text
function (covered here). In both of the cases, it was possible to simplify the functionality by answering those questions.Nevertheless, this project was very well done. Best of all, the project was accurate. Great job!