Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Review for team fdffc6547a5c805a9e4a48c0598ceba4
- Legend:
- + Positive
- ~ Neutral
- - Negative
- Given a scale with quarter points I would award:
- Textual description: 5.75 / 6
- Code quality: 6 / 6
- Results: 5 / 6
- The grades given are based on the comments below. The negative and positive points are comments about either something lacking or which impressed me. A lack of comment on something is indicative that I considered it good or reasonably good.
- Overall comments:
- + Usage of pickle is well done
- + The commenting of functions created is extremely well done, giving an overall description of the function and then comments on more complicated lines of the function.
- + The code is always very easy to follow and quite well written
- - A few errors lead to some incorrect results which propagate.
- Comments per section:
- Section A:
- A1:
- + Clear textual description
- + Complete comments
- - The column names have not been renamed to the requested format.
- - Using ‘cvpr’ as index_col removes it from the list, leading to a conference being forgotten and a lower number of total papers.
- A2:
- + Great use of eval function. Simplifies the code itself and the reading of it.
- - Using explode would have simplified creating the author-centric paper, doing the whole ‘author df’ function in a line of code.
- + Good comments on the author df function.
- A3.1:
- - The plot gives the impression that the only outlier is Sheila A. McIlraith due to how the x labels are shown, though the second graph remedies to this.
- - Bar graph or scatter plot would make it easier to see the actual number of papers published in the top 20 authors.
- - Good use of double grouping to make it easier to see what is happening in one go.
- - Really good textual description for this part.
- A3.2:
- - There is no plot of the papers per year before cleaning the year column.
- A3.3, A3.4, A4
- + Clear and concise.
- + The textual description is complete.
- Section B:
- B1
- + Analysis gets the most important points but perhaps could be extended.
- B2.1
- + Good checks on the aminer_ai table.
- B2.2
- ~ Perhaps use a bar graph for more readability rather than a long list.
- B2.3
- - Not completely clear which list is the one for those absent in the H5 ranking, perhaps a bit more textual description or printing the full list would make it more readable.
- B2.4
- + Based on the observed results (cvpr conference missing) the analysis is reasonable.
- B2.5
- - A rotation of 90 on the x labels make them hard to read.
- - The difference between both graphs with the title ‘Sum of the rank drop of the top20 per conference removed’ is unclear.
- - Unconvincing analysis: ‘If an author publishes only in one conference and that conference disappears, then his rank will drop greatly.’ If I understood what’s being said, then this is a bit too self-evident.
- B3
- + Very interesting analysis found.
- ~ Could talk about potential issues with the new scoring method. The analysis is interesting but lacks critique.
- Section C:
- C
- + The analysis is complete.
- + The textual description is well done.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement