Project 3 Peer Review

[jmr15122]

Hi Abigail, I am just going to leave some suggestions below to satisfy the peer review portion of project 3. Feel free to check out my project too!

1.) It was clever for you to use the same for loop to define both your explicit and your explicit solutions. If I were to go back I would do the same to cut down on code.

2.) Nice plot for part one, unique color selections. Just to make it more clear, you could add a title and maybe make it larger or alternatively make the legend smaller. Also, if you use a semicolon after changing plot features then you wont get the python output that appears directly above your plot.

3.) Your graphs for the simplerocket integration as well as the comparison between simplerocket and rocket also don't have titles, which made them a bit confusing as to what I was observing at first.

4.) Using different markers and colors though made it very easy to distinguish between separate plots on each of your graphs.

5.) For the final plot, I would label the point that is defined so that we know what we are looking at. In general for this last section as well, it could be useful to have section headings for when you are responding to each parts of the question (a, b, and c).

6.) When using the incsearch function to determine a bounded region of where the desired dmdt lies, you used the default 50 subintervals when you called the function rather than the prescribed 5-10. If you were doing this project without the constraints this wouldn't really be an "issue", I just mention it because the problem asks for between 5 and 10 subintervals.

Overall, good job!