Project Checkpoint Feedback

[ShanEllis]

Project Checkpoint Feedback

Score (out of 5 pts)

Score = 5

Data Checkpoint Feedback

	Quality	Reasons
Data relevance	P
Data description	D	Good description overall, but make sure to explain why you picked the variables in the dataset that you did. Also, you should discuss the original source of the data (and e.g., how reliable/trustworthy it is). Relatedly, if you do so (under the Provenance section of the Metadata), it leads to a dataset article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109366) that leads to a research article (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.057) that uses the same dataset to test how mental health impacts pregnancy outcomes, so you need to make sure you can demonstrate how your analysis goes beyond this.
Data wrangling	D	Income variable does not seem cleaned (and if it's not relevant, should be removed).

Comments

• Please remove all the question text so that it's easier to read.
• Please only include the latest version of each section (rather than the past versions as well) in your jupyter notebook submissions in fututre

Proposal Regrade Feedback

	Quality	Reasons
Abstract	NA
Research question	D	How does your project go beyond previous work?
Background	D	See above comments about the paper that originally uses your dataset
Hypothesis	P
Data	P
Ethics	D	Make sure you know the data collection procedure from the paper
Team expectations	U	Still missing
Timeline	U	Still missing.

Rubric

	Unsatisfactory	Developing	Proficient	Excellent
Data relevance	Did not have data relevant to their question. Or the datasets don't work together because there is no way to line them up against each other. If there are multiple datasets, most of them have this trouble	Data was only tangentially relevant to the question or a bad proxy for the question. If there are multiple datasets, some of them may be irrelevant or can't be easily combined.	All data sources are relevant to the question.	Multiple data sources for each aspect of the project. It's clear how the data supports the needs of the project.
Data description	Dataset or its cleaning procedures are not described. If there are multiple datasets, most have this trouble	Data was not fully described. If there are multiple datasets, some of them are not fully described	Data was fully described	The details of the data descriptions and perhaps some very basic EDA also make it clear how the data supports the needs of the project.
Data wrangling	Did not obtain data. They did not clean/tidy the data they obtained. If there are multiple datasets, most have this trouble	Data was partially cleaned or tidied. Perhaps you struggled to verify that the data was clean because they did not present it well. If there are multiple datasets, some have this trouble	The data is cleaned and tidied.	The data is spotless and they used tools to visualize the data cleanliness and you were convinced at first glance

Grading Rules

Scoring: Out of 5 points

Each Developing => -1 pts
Each Unsatisfactory=> -2 pts
until the score is 0

If students address the detailed feedback in a future checkpoint they will earn these points back

DETAILED FEEDBACK should be left in the data section AND anywhere the student addressed proposal feedback but did not do it to your satisfaction

[jkondo14]

We have just resubmitted the project proposal and checkpoint #1 in their respective file and are requesting a regrade for the two. Thank you.