Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

fix: remove Twitter link and update Adam's credentials :-) #843

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 27, 2024
Merged

fix: remove Twitter link and update Adam's credentials :-) #843

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ First-time reviewers may find it helpful to read (about) some previous reviews.

You can read blog posts written by reviewers about their experiences [via this link](https://ropensci.org/tags/reviewer/). In particular, in [this blog post by Mara Averick](https://ropensci.org/blog/2017/08/22/first-package-review/) read about the "naive user" role a reviewer can take to provide useful feedback even without being experts of the package's topic or implementation, by asking themselves *"What did I think this thing would do? Does it do it? What are things that scare me off?"*. In [another blog post](https://ropensci.org/blog/2017/09/08/first-review-experiences/) Verena Haunschmid explains how she alternated between using the package and checking its code.

As both a former reviewer and package author [Adam Sparks](https://adamhsparks.netlify.app/) [wrote this](https://twitter.com/adamhsparks/status/898132036451303425) "\[write\] a good critique of the package structure and best coding practices. If you know how to do something better, tell me. It's easy to miss documentation opportunities as a developer, as a reviewer, you have a different view. You're a user that can give feedback. What's not clear in the package? How can it be made more clear? If you're using it for the first time, is it easy? Do you know another R package that maybe I should be using? Or is there one I'm using that perhaps I shouldn't be? If you can contribute to the package, offer."
As both a former reviewer and package author, and now editor, [Adam Sparks](https://adamhsparks.netlify.app/) wrote "\[write\] a good critique of the package structure and best coding practices. If you know how to do something better, tell me. It's easy to miss documentation opportunities as a developer, as a reviewer, you have a different view. You're a user that can give feedback. What's not clear in the package? How can it be made more clear? If you're using it for the first time, is it easy? Do you know another R package that maybe I should be using? Or is there one I'm using that perhaps I shouldn't be? If you can contribute to the package, offer."

### Helper package for reviewers {#helper-package-for-reviewers}

Expand Down
Loading