The project peer review is designed to be completed at the end of your lab section on Tuesday, April 11th. No submission on Gradescope needed, just post issues on GitHub by this time. All issues will be due by 11:59 on Wednesday, April 12th.
Each group will create one issue per review and provide feedback within this issue. If you are not in lab, it is your responsibility to create a separate issue and provide additional feedback.
Learning goals
In this lab, you will…
- Review others’ project drafts as a team and provide feedback
- Post issues on GitHub using an issue template
- Learn from others’ projects and improve your own project based on their strengths and weaknesses
Project peer review
Each team will review two other teams’ project. As a team you should spend ~30 minutes on each team’s project.
Find the names of the teams whose projects you’re reviewing below. You should already have access to this team’s repo.
Each team member should go to the repo of the team you’re reviewing.
-
Then,
1-2 team members clone the team’s project and renders it to check for reproducibility.
1-2 team members open the team’s project in their browser and starts reading through the project draft.
1 team member opens an issue on the team’s repo using the peer review template.
All team members discuss the project based on the prompts on the issue template and one team member records the feedback and submits the issue.
-
To open an issue in the repo you’re reviewing, click on New issue, and click on Get started for the Peer review issue. Fill out this issue, answering the following questions:
Peer review by: [NAME OF TEAM DOING THE REVIEW]
Names of team members that participated in this review: [FULL NAMES OF TEAM MEMBERS DOING THE REVIEW]
Describe the goal of the project.
Describe the data used or collected, if any. If the proposal does not include the use of a specific dataset, comment on whether the project would be strengthened by the inclusion of a dataset.
Describe the approaches, tools, and methods that will be used.
Provide constructive feedback on how the team might be able to improve their project. Make sure your feedback includes at least one comment on the statistical reasoning aspect of the project, but do feel free to comment on aspects beyond the reasoning as well.
What aspect of this project are you most interested in and would like to see highlighted in the presentation.
Were you able to reproduce the project by clicking on Render Website once you cloned it? Were there any issues with reproducibility?
Provide constructive feedback on any issues with file and/or code organization.
What have you learned from this team’s project that you are considering implementing in your own project?
(Optional) Any further comments or feedback?
Review pairings
Be mindful and find your appropriate section below. These are not listed in order by time of day.
Warning: package 'ggplot2' was built under R version 4.2.2
Warning: package 'tidyr' was built under R version 4.2.2
Warning: package 'readr' was built under R version 4.2.2
Warning: package 'purrr' was built under R version 4.2.2
| Your team name |
To review 1 |
To review 2 |
| Tu 10:15am - 11:30am |
| sec-6-team-1 |
lucky-7 |
sec-6-team-6 |
| stattastic |
sec-6-team-1 |
lucky-7 |
| avocado |
stattastic |
sec-6-team-1 |
| statisfactory |
avocado |
stattastic |
| stat4 |
statisfactory |
avocado |
| sec-6-team-6 |
stat4 |
statisfactory |
| lucky-7 |
sec-6-team-6 |
stat4 |
| Tu 12:00pm - 1:15pm |
| banana-boat |
sec-7-team-7 |
toryes |
| r-s2dio |
banana-boat |
sec-7-team-7 |
| the-butterflies |
r-s2dio |
banana-boat |
| sec-7-team-4 |
the-butterflies |
r-s2dio |
| hunger-games-catching-meyer |
sec-7-team-4 |
the-butterflies |
| toryes |
hunger-games-catching-meyer |
sec-7-team-4 |
| sec-7-team-7 |
toryes |
hunger-games-catching-meyer |
| Tu 1:45pm - 3:00pm |
| stat-legends |
super-staters |
sec-8-team-5 |
| sec-8-team-2 |
stat-legends |
super-staters |
| james-and-crew |
sec-8-team-2 |
stat-legends |
| data-dudes |
james-and-crew |
sec-8-team-2 |
| sec-8-team-5 |
data-dudes |
james-and-crew |
| super-staters |
sec-8-team-5 |
data-dudes |
| Tu 3:30pm - 4:45pm |
| stat-wizards |
team-007 |
the-wranglers |
| ggplotheads |
stat-wizards |
team-007 |
| the-great-group-3 |
ggplotheads |
stat-wizards |
| THAN |
the-great-group-3 |
ggplotheads |
| we-r-group-5 |
THAN |
the-great-group-3 |
| the-wranglers |
we-r-group-5 |
THAN |
| team-007 |
the-wranglers |
we-r-group-5 |
| Tu 5:15pm - 6:30pm (10L) |
| PX |
sevenr |
heartemoji |
| Cris_Jenner |
PX |
sevenr |
| Team_Freedom |
Cris_Jenner |
PX |
| AAAW |
Team_Freedom |
Cris_Jenner |
| Team_199 |
AAAW |
Team_Freedom |
| heartemoji |
Team_199 |
AAAW |
| sevenr |
heartemoji |
Team_199 |
| Tu 5:15pm - 6:30pm (12L) |
| git-it-done |
so-on-and-so-forth |
auto-as |
| abele |
git-it-done |
so-on-and-so-forth |
| statstars |
abele |
git-it-done |
| sec-12-team-4 |
statstars |
abele |
| auto-as |
sec-12-team-4 |
statstars |
| so-on-and-so-forth |
auto-as |
sec-12-team-4 |
The feedback issue will come from one team member on GitHub since you can’t collectively edit an issue. However it must represent the opinions of the entire team that is present in lab. It is not a single team member’s responsibility to provide feedback, they’re just the record keeper for the team.
Attendance will be collected to clarify who is participating with the issues created during lab, and who still must contribute by creating their own issue outside of lab.
Grading
Peer reviews will be graded on an individual basis on the extent to which it comprehensively and constructively addresses the components of the reviewee’s team’s report. If you are in lab, you will be graded based on issues created during lab time. If you are not in lab, you have a responsibility to create a separate issue for your assigned teams.
All issues will be due on Wednesday at 11:59 PM and be graded on the following:
0 points: No peer review
1 point: Only one peer review issue open, feedback provided is not constructive or actionable
2 points: Both peer review issues open, feedback provided is not constructive or actionable
3 points: Both peer review issues open, feedback provided is not sufficiently thorough
4 points: Both peer review issues open, one of the reviews is not sufficiently thorough
5 points: Both peer review issues open, both reviews are constructive, actionable, and sufficiently thorough