| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
GIVJA |
||
theoutliers |
||
datadinos |
||
theAteam |
||
flamingos |
||
thebusybees |
||
theelephants |
Peer review
Milestone 4
Project
During the peer feedback process, you will be provided read-only access to your partner team’s GitHub repo. You will provide your feedback in the form of GitHub issues to your partner team’s GitHub repo.
Goals
The goals of this milestone are as follows:
- 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
Instructions
Review two other teams’ projects. 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
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
github_lit |
||
commitment_issue |
||
arctic_coders |
||
rendeers |
||
syntax_samurai |
||
kraft_kings |
||
mission_impossible |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
jmeg |
||
3D-coders |
||
BASK |
||
the_outliers |
||
debug_divas |
||
dream_team |
||
Clustered_Chaos |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
Vermillion_Alligators |
||
Stats_Squad_4F |
||
Devils_R_Us |
||
Pickleball |
||
The_DJs |
||
Speedy_Statisticians |
||
Blue |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
team_great |
||
variable_chaos |
||
saved_by_the_bell_curve |
||
edwards_ensemble |
||
data_jemms |
||
mean_girls |
||
super_cool_team |
||
data_dorks |
||
faang_fans |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
coding-goats |
||
aardvark |
||
ggplotters |
||
amee |
||
mjca |
||
pivot_better |
||
r-masters |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
jamm |
||
latte |
||
jada |
||
muchahos |
||
statistical-significance |
||
a-team |
||
standard-deviants |
||
sultans-of-stats |
||
ranch |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
blue-cheese |
||
top-of-the-bell-curve |
||
bluebears |
||
codebreakers |
||
tidyverse-titans |
||
the-pipe |
||
digital-warriors |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
the-data-devils |
||
quarto-crew |
||
blue-dolphins |
||
r-studio-devils |
||
stats-stars |
||
spa-r-kles |
||
dyplr-maniacs |
||
tibble-twins |
| Your team name | Team to review 1 | Team to review 2 |
|---|---|---|
sigma-squad |
||
zebras |
||
states199 |
||
stats-shawties |
||
data-divas |
||
stats-bros |
||
global-variables |
Grading
Peer reviews will be graded on the extent to which it comprehensively and constructively addresses the components of the reviewee’s team’s report.
Only the team members participating in the review during the lab session are eligible for points for the peer review. If you’re unable to make it to lab in person, you should arrange to virtually connect with your team during your lab session.
0 points: No peer review
1 point: Feedback provided is not constructive or actionable
2-4 points: Feedback provided is not sufficiently thorough
5 points: Peer review is constructive, actionable, and sufficiently thorough
Note
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. It is not a single team member’s responsibility to provide feedback, they’re just the record keeper for the team.