Instructions

These reviews will be submitted as comments on the pull request. The comments should address the solution, code, and presentation:

• Solutions:

  • The reviewer should check whether the solutions are correct. A key will be provided.
  • The reviewer should note incorrect or incomplete solutions, along with a suggestion of what they can do to fix it. The reviewer does not need to fix the problems, but they should provide indications of where the solution
  • Note correct solutions.
  • If you are unsure about a solution, note it clearly, and ask the instructors for assistance, or the author for clarification.

• Code:

  • Check that the code runs/compiles; in this class that means “does it knit?”. It should run without editing, and produce the results presented.
  • If any errors are encountered: include the exact error message as a code block in comments.
  • The code should be clearly written, formatted, and easy to follow.
  • There should not be errors or warnings in the code.

• Presentation:

  • Is the document clearly written, well formatted, such that you as a reviewer can follow and understand the solutions?

How Peer Reviews will be evaluated

It’s binary. Each peer review will be deemed “good” or “needs more”. Each review you do will give you 1 point if is “good” and 0 points if it “needs more”. Those will be totaled over all assignments to form your peer review mark.

How to give good comments:

• Address questions that were answered incorrectly, unclearly, or particularly well.
• Give thoughtful, constructive and considerate comments.
• Be specific and concise.
• Try to learn something new and, if you succeed, point that out.
• If you can’t find anything to praise or that you found helpful, then at least offer some suggestions in a kind way.

Features of “needs more”:

• You do not address each question.
• Your review is mean.
• You can’t find anything to praise/learn and yet you don’t offer any suggestions either.