rqt_robot_monitor/Reviews/2013-02-04_Doc_Review

ID

Review question

Reviewee self-eval

Reviewer Result

1

Is the description in the manifest.xml informative? This shows up in the summary at the top of the wiki page.

Y

2

Does the Wiki page properly introduce the user to the package. For example, if the package is a C++ library, does the wiki page guide the user to the C++ API. If the package contains a spec (e.g. URDF), is it easy to find and interact with that spec?

N

3

Are there grey links in the Wiki sidebar that should be filled in, e.g. "Tutorials" and "Troubleshooting"?

Y

4

For the expected usages of the Package, are all of these APIs documented? (in other words, internal APIs do not need to be documented, some justification needs to be provided by the package owner as to what is/isn't internal)

In code

5

Do relevant usages have associated tutorials? (you can ignore this if a Stack-level tutorial covers the relevant usage)

Not applicable (N/A)

6

If there are hardware dependencies of your Package, are these documented?

N/A

7

Is it clear to an outside user what the roadmap is for your Package? It's okay if this roadmap is on the Stack roadmap.

N

8

Is it clear to an outside user what the stability is for your Package?

N

9

Are concepts introduced by your Package well illustrated?

N

10

Is the research related to your Package referenced properly? i.e. can users easily get to relevant papers?

N/A

11

Are any mathematical formulas in your Package not covered by papers properly documented?

N/A