Be more precise about what initial editor checks can contain?

[maelle]

List to be completed

• From a quick look at the README/pkgdown homepage, is the case for the package made well.
• Is the documentation for human installation clear enough.
• Is the reference index in pkgdown grouped by topic.
• If the package has some interactivity / HTTP / plot production etc. are the tests using state-of-the-art tooling.
• Is the documentation for contribution clear enough e.g. tokens for tests, playgrounds.
• What is the state of the issue tracker, e.g. are there outstanding bugs, is it clear when feature requests are meant to be tackled.
• What is the state of the PR tracker, e.g. are there stale PRs.

[maelle]

Part of this might need to go the author guide as well.

[mpadge]

Things which can be pkgchecked:

• ref index for pkgdown grouped by topic
• overview of stats on issues + PRs

I think that automating more means less written requirements for editors and reviewers, and easier or at least more informed reviews. Feel free to open issues in pkgcheck for these and anything else that might be usefully done there.

[emilyriederer]

I like to check the vignettes manually to ensure they seems readable and sufficiently detailed and not just perfunctory. I know that the bot already confirms their existence, and arguably the reviewer's are the ultimate arbiter of their quality. However, I feel like it is part of my obligation to ensure that those are meaty enough to help the reviewers do a good review, and it also helps me have more context to pick good reviewers and understand the review feedback.

[maelle]

@mpadge I agree and have opened two issues.

@emilyriederer Thank you, good point!

[maelle]

The PR is ropensci/software-review#482 as the template does not live here.

[maelle]

The PR above has been merged