Skip to content

Commit af1ed5c

Browse files
authored
fix: remove Twitter link and update Adam's credentials :-) (#843)
1 parent 1476717 commit af1ed5c

File tree

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ First-time reviewers may find it helpful to read (about) some previous reviews.
8282

8383
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.
8484

85-
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."
85+
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."
8686

8787
### Helper package for reviewers {#helper-package-for-reviewers}
8888

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)