It is crucial that you are able to review other code to assess the quality of the code as well as how you might be able to implement this code. We will practice this skill by making sure you review the code of others. Please remember the following rubric:
| Topic | Excellent: ✓+ coded as + |
Satisfactory: ✓ coded as 0 |
Needs work: ✓- coded as - |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding style | Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, , code is well commented | Coding style lacks refinement and has some errors, but code is readable and has some comments | Many errors in coding style, little attention paid to making the code human readable |
| Coding strategy | Complicated problem broken down into sub-problems that are individually much simpler. Code is efficient, correct, and minimal. Code uses appropriate data structure (list, data frame, vector/matrix/array). Code checks for common errors | Code is correct, but could be edited down to leaner code. Some "hacking" instead of using suitable data structure. Some checks for errors. | Code tackles complicated problem in one big chunk. Code is repetitive and could easily be functionalized. No anticipation of errors. |
| Presentation: graphs | Graph(s) carefully tuned for desired purpose. One graph illustrates one point | Graph(s) well chosen, but with a few minor problems: inappropriate aspect ratios, poor labels. | Graph(s) poorly chosen to support questions. |
| Presentation: tables | Table(s) carefully constructed to make it easy to perform important comparisons. Careful styling highlights important features. | Table(s) generally appropriate but possibly some minor formatting deficiencies. | Table(s) with too many, or inconsistent, decimal places. Table(s) not appropriate for questions and findings. Major display problems. |
| Achievement, mastery, cleverness, creativity | Student has gone beyond what was expected and required, e.g., extraordinary effort, additional tools not addressed by this course, unusually sophisticated application of tools from course. | Tools and techniques from the course are applied very competently and, perhaps,somewhat creatively. Chosen task was acceptable, but fairly conservative in ambition. | Student does not display the expected level of mastery of the tools and techniques in this course. Chosen task was too limited in scope. |
| Ease of access for instructor, compliance with course conventions for submitted work | Access as easy as possible, code runs! | Satisfactory | Not an earnest effort to reduce friction and comply with conventions and/or code does not run |
Go through each of the 5 teams that you were not on. Review the code for each of these teams. Then in the main folder of this repository, create a file called:
peer_review_lastname.md
Use proper markdown formatting in order to comment using the above rubric on all of the work that groups have presented. Keep in mind how easy their work is to navigate, how concise and commented their code is and how easy it is for you to run yourself.