[REVIEW]: BayesEoR: Bayesian 21-cm Power Spectrum Estimation from Interferometric Visibilities #6667

editorialbot · 2024-04-23T11:25:09Z

Submitting author: @jburba (Jacob Burba)
Repository: https://github.com/PSims/BayesEoR
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 1.0.0
Editor: @dfm
Reviewers: @musoke, @zonca
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13912275

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/e5972aa5021ae9492a44d55574119747)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@musoke & @zonca, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @dfm know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @musoke

📝 Checklist for @zonca

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-04-23T11:25:12Z

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-04-23T11:25:27Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stw1768 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz153 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1888 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad401 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa327 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa414 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-04-23T11:25:30Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.06 s (628.5 files/s, 162597.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Python                          25            916           3160           5451
reStructuredText                 5            126             61            128
TeX                              1              6              0            117
Markdown                         2             41              0            114
YAML                             4              6             24             73
TOML                             1              4              0             35
C                                1             15             23             28
make                             1              4              7              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            40           1118           3275           5955
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   333	jburba
    25	Jacob Burba
    19	PSims

editorialbot · 2024-04-23T11:25:34Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 589

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-04-23T11:25:35Z

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

dfm · 2024-04-23T11:26:11Z

@musoke, @zonca — This is the review thread for the paper. All of our correspondence will happen here from now on. Thanks again for agreeing to participate!

👉 Please read the "Reviewer instructions & questions" in the first comment above, and generate your checklists by commenting @editorialbot generate my checklist on this issue ASAP. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews#6667 so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread. In my experience, it is better to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

We aim for the review process to be completed within about 4-6 weeks but please try to make a start ahead of this as JOSS reviews are by their nature iterative and any early feedback you may be able to provide to the author will be very helpful in meeting this schedule. Please get your review started as soon as possible!

editorialbot · 2024-04-23T11:26:34Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

dfm · 2024-04-23T11:27:14Z

@jburba — I should have caught this before, but it looks like your code is not licensed. You'll need to add an appropriate open source license before we can proceed. https://choosealicense.com can be a useful resource.

jburba · 2024-04-23T12:54:32Z

Thanks @dfm , we forgot to add that. I've added a license to the repo.

musoke · 2024-04-23T14:11:32Z

Review checklist for @musoke

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/PSims/BayesEoR?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jburba) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
- Names of dependencies are given in environment.yaml. It wouldn't hurt to specify version numbers.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
- [joss-review] Error when running tests PSims/BayesEoR#31 There are tests that should produce plots like those in the paper but I was unable to run them.
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
- see [joss-review] Feedback on draft PSims/BayesEoR#30
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
- see [joss-review] Feedback on draft PSims/BayesEoR#30
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?
- see [joss-review] Feedback on draft PSims/BayesEoR#30

zonca · 2024-04-24T00:34:47Z

Review checklist for @zonca

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/PSims/BayesEoR?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@jburba) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation? [joss-review] do not install pymultinest to avoid installing mpi4py via conda PSims/BayesEoR#16 [joss-review] Install magma with conda? PSims/BayesEoR#18
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is? [joss-review] Improve statement of need in docs PSims/BayesEoR#17
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution. [joss-review] how to create wrapmzpotrf.so PSims/BayesEoR#20 Makefile for wrapmzpotrf.so PSims/BayesEoR#23 feat: install magma and cuda with conda PSims/BayesEoR#24
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems). [joss-review] specify need for array-storage in example run PSims/BayesEoR#19 [joss-review] memory requirement of example run PSims/BayesEoR#22 [joss-review] reduce sampling time for example run PSims/BayesEoR#26
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified? [joss-review] Add testing PSims/BayesEoR#21
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

PSims/BayesEoR#25

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

zonca · 2024-04-24T05:27:27Z

@jburba I opened issues on the repository with some feedback, the only one which is blocking is PSims/BayesEoR#20, if you focus first on this issue, I can continue trying to run the example config. I was able to build the matrix stack, but cannot run sampling.

zonca · 2024-04-24T23:10:08Z

@jburba @dfm finished my review and opened issues for follow-up on what I found, all linked in the review checklist. Once the issues are addressed (which doesn't necessarily mean we implement what I suggest, we could also agree something is a longer term goal), I think this is good for publication. Thanks!

musoke · 2024-04-25T14:43:28Z

@jburba, would you like to respond to some of @zonca's requests before I finish my review? As is, I expect that many of my comments will be agreement that installation should be simplified/clarified.

(@dfm, let me know if this would be procedurally problematic 😃)

jburba · 2024-04-25T15:28:31Z

@musoke yes, I can respond to @zonca's requests first, that's fine. I will note in my current job I only have ~1 day a week for independent research (which this falls under). Apologies in advance if I'm a bit slow to respond at times!

dfm · 2024-04-26T17:13:30Z

Thanks all!

@musoke — I'd probably recommend that you see how far you can get with your review, as long as @zonca's issues aren't full blockers (it does seem like the installation one might be?). That way @jburba could work on addressing all the comments in parallel. Otherwise this could end up dragging on longer than we want. But you are all welcome to proceed as you feel is best for everyone involved!

zonca · 2024-05-10T19:37:45Z

Good job @jburba, my review is finished,
there are 3 open issues that I think would be good to address, but I do not think they are blocking.

@musoke I think you can get started, you might want to check the 3 issues I left open in the repo to see if you feel those should be addressed before publication or not: https://github.com/PSims/BayesEoR/issues/created_by/zonca

dfm · 2024-05-17T22:50:52Z

@musoke — Just a ping to make sure this is on your radar. Please revisit ASAP. Thank you!

musoke · 2024-06-05T02:37:58Z

I have finished my review.

Summary: it's a nice package but there are some outstanding issues to address.

[joss-review] Feedback on draft PSims/BayesEoR#30
[joss-review] Error when running tests PSims/BayesEoR#31 I don't doubt that the package does what it claims, but this issue prevented me from verifying the functionality.

dfm · 2024-06-23T20:10:12Z

@musoke, @zonca — It looks like @jburba has responded to the issues that you opened on the BayesEoR repo. Can you take a look soon and update your checklists / respond to those comments accordingly soon? Thanks!!

zonca · 2024-06-24T05:27:47Z

Thank you. I completed my checklist

dfm · 2024-11-03T19:21:32Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13912275 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-11-03T19:21:36Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13912275

dfm · 2024-11-03T19:21:44Z

@editorialbot check references

dfm · 2024-11-03T19:21:51Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-11-03T19:22:01Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stw1768 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz153 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1888 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad401 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa327 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa414 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00140 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-11-03T19:23:29Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

dfm · 2024-11-03T19:27:10Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-11-03T19:27:11Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-11-03T19:27:31Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stw1768 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz153 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1888 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad401 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa327 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa414 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00140 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-11-03T19:29:10Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6087, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

dfm · 2024-11-03T19:31:31Z

@musoke, @zonca — Many thanks again for your reviews here! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you!!

@jburba — I have now handed your paper off for a final review by the track editor @warrickball, who may have some final edits before publication. Thanks again for your patience!

warrickball · 2024-11-13T21:47:43Z

Hi @jburba — I've been quietly working through a few checks but I do apologise for the slightly slow response to this. I've opened a pull request with a few final editorial touches. With those implemented I'll test the metadata generation one more time then almost certainly be able to proceed with publication.

jburba · 2024-11-18T10:16:49Z

Hi @warrickball , we've merged your pull request, thanks for the edits. If you need anything else from us please let us know!

warrickball · 2024-11-18T10:55:08Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T10:55:14Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T10:55:29Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1093/mnras/stw1768 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz153 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stz1888 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/stad401 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa327 is OK
- 10.1093/mnras/staa414 is OK
- 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1c78 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00140 is OK
- 10.1051/0004-6361/201322971 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- None

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T10:57:18Z

👋 @openjournals/aass-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#6152, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

warrickball · 2024-11-18T11:01:59Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T11:02:01Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T11:09:04Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Sims
  given-names: Peter H.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2871-0413"
- family-names: Burba
  given-names: Jacob
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8465-9341"
- family-names: Pober
  given-names: Jonathan C.
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3492-0433"
contact:
- family-names: Burba
  given-names: Jacob
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8465-9341"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13912275
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Sims
    given-names: Peter H.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2871-0413"
  - family-names: Burba
    given-names: Jacob
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8465-9341"
  - family-names: Pober
    given-names: Jonathan C.
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3492-0433"
  date-published: 2024-11-18
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06667
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 103
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6667
  title: "BayesEoR: Bayesian 21-cm Power Spectrum Estimation from
    Interferometric Visibilities"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06667"
  volume: 9
title: "BayesEoR: Bayesian 21-cm Power Spectrum Estimation from
  Interferometric Visibilities"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T11:09:13Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T11:09:14Z

🦋🦋🦋 👉 Bluesky post for this paper 👈 🦋🦋🦋

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T11:09:15Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06667 joss-papers#6153
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06667
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

warrickball · 2024-11-18T13:06:39Z

Thanks once again to @musoke & @zonca for reviewing and @dfm for editing this submission! JOSS simply wouldn't be possible without its community of volunteers.

Congratulations @jburba, your paper has been published in JOSS!

editorialbot · 2024-11-18T13:06:41Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following

code snippets

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06667/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06667)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06667">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06667/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06667/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06667

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added C Python review TeX Track: 1 (AASS) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Space Sciences labels Apr 23, 2024

editorialbot assigned dfm Apr 23, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Apr 23, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: BayesEoR: Bayesian 21-cm Power Spectrum Estimation from Interferometric Visibilities #6352

Closed

This was referenced May 31, 2024

[joss-review] Feedback on draft PSims/BayesEoR#30

Closed

[joss-review] Error when running tests PSims/BayesEoR#31

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Nov 3, 2024

warrickball mentioned this issue Nov 13, 2024

Editorial tweaks for publication in JOSS PSims/BayesEoR#37

Merged

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Nov 18, 2024

warrickball closed this as completed Nov 18, 2024

[REVIEW]: BayesEoR: Bayesian 21-cm Power Spectrum Estimation from Interferometric Visibilities #6667

[REVIEW]: BayesEoR: Bayesian 21-cm Power Spectrum Estimation from Interferometric Visibilities #6667

Comments

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024

dfm commented Apr 23, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024

dfm commented Apr 23, 2024

jburba commented Apr 23, 2024

musoke commented Apr 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @musoke

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

zonca commented Apr 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @zonca

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

zonca commented Apr 24, 2024

zonca commented Apr 24, 2024

musoke commented Apr 25, 2024

jburba commented Apr 25, 2024

dfm commented Apr 26, 2024

zonca commented May 10, 2024

dfm commented May 17, 2024

musoke commented Jun 5, 2024

dfm commented Jun 23, 2024

zonca commented Jun 24, 2024

dfm commented Nov 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 3, 2024

dfm commented Nov 3, 2024

dfm commented Nov 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 3, 2024

dfm commented Nov 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 3, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 3, 2024

dfm commented Nov 3, 2024

warrickball commented Nov 13, 2024

jburba commented Nov 18, 2024

warrickball commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

warrickball commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

warrickball commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Nov 18, 2024

editorialbot commented Apr 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

musoke commented Apr 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

zonca commented Apr 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading