Skip to content

Claude/fix grammar planetary motion zsuya#13

Open
emstruong wants to merge 3 commits into
avehtari:mainfrom
emstruong:claude/fix-grammar-planetary-motion-zsuya
Open

Claude/fix grammar planetary motion zsuya#13
emstruong wants to merge 3 commits into
avehtari:mainfrom
emstruong:claude/fix-grammar-planetary-motion-zsuya

Conversation

@emstruong
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@emstruong emstruong commented Apr 18, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Hello,

There was some phrasing that didn't seem quite right, so I thought it might be interesting to try to make Claude scan through everything for typos/grammar. Hope that's ok.

I thought its proposals were mostly reasonable.

claude added 2 commits April 18, 2026 01:32
@claude
Fix grammar in planetary_motion.R lines 825-827
5dd5e03 
Remove extra "the" before "after" and add missing article "a" before "need".
@claude
Fix clear typos and grammar issues across repository
f0d4b09 
Applied unambiguous fixes found during a full repo scan:
- roaches.R: remove doubled "to to" (2 occurrences)
- park_rule.R: remove doubled "the the"
- sleep_study.R: "an hierarchical" → "a hierarchical"
- kilpis_ppc.R: "an weakly" → "a weakly"
- sbc.R: "want to/be able to" → "want to or be able to"
- birthdays.R: remove 4 double-spaces in comments, fix subject-verb
  agreement ("parameters are"), missing article ("a bad model"),
  and word ("trying to get")
- Add grammar_issues.md with 5 ambiguous issues for human review
@emstruong
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

emstruong commented Apr 18, 2026

The file grammar_issues.md discusses some further issues requiring human editting, which I will copy paste here

Grammar and Typo Issues Requiring Human Review

The following issues were found during a repository-wide grammar scan. They are ambiguous enough that an automated fix could alter the intended meaning, and require an author to resolve.

1. nabiximols/nabiximols.R — Line 154

Current text:

The second provided models is binomial model with the number of trials being $28$ for each outcome (cu)

Issues: "models" should likely be "model" (plural → singular), and "binomial model" is missing the article "a".

Suggested fix:

The second provided model is a binomial model with the number of trials being $28$ for each outcome (cu)

2. roaches/roaches.R — Line 394

Current text:

there would not have been need to fit Poisson model at all.

Issues: Missing article and awkward phrasing. The intended meaning is unclear — "been a need" or "been needed".

Option A:

there would not have been a need to fit the Poisson model at all.

Option B:

there would not have needed to fit the Poisson model at all.

3. golf/golf.R — Line 694

Current text:

because it was a sort of admission of failure to not be able to directly use the binomial model.

Issue: Double negative — "failure to not be able to" is contradictory. The intended meaning determines the fix.

Option A (failure = couldn't use binomial):

because it was a sort of admission of failure to directly use the binomial model.

Option B (failure = the workaround itself):

because it was a sort of admission that we were not able to directly use the binomial model.

4. birthdays/birthdays.R — Line 308

Current text:

and in this that number is impractically big.

Issue: "in this that" is garbled — a word is missing or misplaced.

Suggested fix (uncertain which word was intended):

and in this case the number is impractically big.

or

and in that case the number is impractically big.

5. nabiximols/nabiximols.R — Line 1084

Current text:

which makes the log score not to be sensitive in tails.

Issue: "not to be sensitive" is awkward. The intended meaning could be "insensitive" or "not sensitive".

Option A:

which makes the log score insensitive in the tails.

Option B:

which makes the log score not sensitive in the tails.

jgabry
jgabry reviewed Apr 18, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@jgabry jgabry left a comment •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you for the PR. The changes look good. Regarding the numbered items in grammar_issues.md:

  1. agree
  2. agree with option A
  3. let's skip this one (leave as is for now)
  4. agree with first suggested fix
  5. agree with option B

Would you be willing to update the PR with those and then remove the grammar_issues.md file from the PR? Thanks again!

@claude
Apply reviewer-approved grammar fixes and remove grammar_issues.md
f62d2e8 
Per jgabry's review on avehtari#13:
- nabiximols.R:154: "models is binomial model" → "model is a binomial model"
- roaches.R:394: "not have been need" → "not have been a need to fit the Poisson model"
- birthdays.R:308: "in this that number" → "in this case the number"
- nabiximols.R:1084: "not to be sensitive in tails" → "not sensitive in the tails"
- golf.R:694: left as-is per reviewer request
- Remove grammar_issues.md
emstruong pushed a commit to emstruong/Bayesian-Workflow that referenced this pull request Apr 18, 2026
@claude
Apply reviewer-approved grammar fixes and remove grammar_issues.md
73c7b35 
Per jgabry's review on avehtari#13:
- nabiximols.R:154: "models is binomial model" → "model is a binomial model"
- roaches.R:394: "not have been need" → "not have been a need to fit the Poisson model"
- birthdays.R:308: "in this that number" → "in this case the number"
- nabiximols.R:1084: "not to be sensitive in tails" → "not sensitive in the tails"
- golf.R:694: left as-is per reviewer request
- Remove grammar_issues.md

https://claude.ai/code/session_01RM14wpzLqnrx8XogvjtjVU
@emstruong
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

emstruong commented Apr 18, 2026

Thanks @jgabry . Claude made the changes.

@emstruong
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

emstruong commented Apr 20, 2026

I was messing around a bit too much, I'll revert this recent bibliography commit soon then leave things as-is.

@emstruong emstruong marked this pull request as draft April 20, 2026 10:13
@emstruong emstruong force-pushed the claude/fix-grammar-planetary-motion-zsuya branch from 06a1c34 to f62d2e8 Compare April 20, 2026 19:09
@emstruong emstruong marked this pull request as ready for review April 20, 2026 23:27
@emstruong
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

emstruong commented Apr 20, 2026

OK, I think it's about right! @jgabry

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jgabry jgabry jgabry left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@emstruong @jgabry @claude