improve reviewing guide

Author: maelle

softwarereview_reviewer.Rmd

@@ -42,16 +42,17 @@ All submissions trigger a detailed report on package structure and functionality
 
 To review a package, please begin by copying our [review template](#reviewtemplate) (or our [review template in Spanish](#reviewtemplatees)) and using it as a high-level checklist.  In addition to checking off the minimum criteria, we ask that you provide general comments addressing the following:
 
-- Does the code comply with general principles in the [Mozilla reviewing guide](https://mozillascience.github.io/codeReview/review.html)?
 - Does the package comply with the [rOpenSci packaging guide](#building)?
-- Are there improvements that could be made to the code style?
+- Are there improvements that could be made to the code style and to code patterns? For instance, are functions broken down in helper functions needed, and is the role of each helper function clear?
 - Is there code duplication in the package that should be reduced?
+- Does the package reinvent any wheel? Are there functions in base R or lightweight dependency that provide the same interface as some helper functions in the package?
 - Are there user interface improvements that could be made?
 - Are there performance improvements that could be made?
 - Is the documentation (installation instructions/vignettes/examples/demos) clear and sufficient? Does it use the principle of *multiple points of entry* i.e. takes into account the fact that any piece of documentation may be the first encounter the user has with the package and/or the tool/data it wraps?
 - Were functions and arguments named to work together to form a common, logical programming API that is easy to read, and autocomplete?
 - If you have your own relevant data/problem, work through it with the package. You may find rough edges and use-cases the author didn't think about.
 
+
 Please be respectful and kind to the authors in your reviews. Our [code of conduct](#code-of-conduct) is mandatory for everyone involved in our review process. We expect you to submit your review within 3 weeks, depending on the deadline set by the editor. Please contact the editor directly or in the submission thread to inform them about possible delays.
 
 We encourage you to use automated tools to facilitate your reviewing.  These include:
@@ -64,6 +65,8 @@ We encourage you to use automated tools to facilitate your reviewing.  These inc
 
 Reviewers may also re-generate package check results from `@ropensci-review-bot` at any time by issuing the single comment in a review issue: `@ropensci-review-bot check package`.
 
+Some items in our checklist were inspired by the [Mozilla code review guide](https://mozillascience.github.io/codeReview/review.html).
+
 ### Off-thread interactions {#off-thread-interactions}
 
 If you interact with the package authors and talked about the review outside a review thread (in chats, DMs, in-person, issues in the project repository), please make sure that your review captures and/or links to elements from these conversations that are relevant to the process.