Address feedback to improve the project

[jasonmlee]

Revise your data analysis project to address feedback received from the DSCI 522 teaching team from past milestones, as well as feedback received from the peer review. 50% of your final grade for this milestone will be assessing whether you have addressed this feedback to improve your project.

Please create a file called CHANGELOG.md that lives in the root of your repository.

In this file describe any improvements you made to the project based on feedback, and point to evidence of these improvements. You can point us to evidence of addressing it by providing URLs to reference specific lines of code, commit messages, pull requests, etc. Be sure to add some narration when sharing these URLs so that it is easy for us to identify which changes to your work addressed which pieces of feedback.

You will be graded on a sliding scale for this, the more improvements you make, the higher your grade for this part of the milestone will be. The improvements should be at least one per team member, and they should significantly improve the project. This minimum could earn at most 37.5/50. To earn more, you need to exceed these minimum improvements.

Changes (based on Milestone 1 feedback)

• README.md - Summary in README should include high-level interpretation of analysis findings, as well 1-2 sentences on what they might mean (at least at a high-level).

• CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md - The email under "enforcement" should be tied to the team

• Introduction:
  - Does not explain why this problem is important or interesting.
  - More clarity is needed to clearly communicate the question being asked
  - It is very difficult from a reader's perspective to understand the actual real world applications of determining someone's age. Using health data to classify age group as a category needs strong justification.

• Methods:

  • Narration of methods and method choices was not as clear and thorough as it could be.
  • Choice of method was not clearly justified.

• Discussion:

  • Assumptions and limitations of methods and findings are not discussed.
  • Findings from project are not linked back to the question.
  • Some key assumptions and limitations of methods and findings are not discussed.