critique

Thanks for the great feedback!

1. I will move the related pages section to see also section
2. I initially did have hypothesis after background. I will try to change the hypothesis to accommodate your suggestions
3. "This was far from the best movie I've ever seen" "This movie didn't have very good characterization, but the CGI was amazing." Yes, these are not handled by the regex. (I am a newbie to ML)
4. I was mostly focussing on the tokenization part. The aggregation was taken care by the library. I can look through the library and add some explaination.
5. Yes neutral labels were not there in the dataset.
6. I wanted to improve the accuracy, basically better than random!

As far as I know, negation is nowhere close to being a solved problem, so no worries there as long as it's acknowledged in the page.

As far as the position of the hypothesis in the page, it might be wise to wait for the other critiques as well, as that's more a stylistic decision than one with a correct/incorrect answer.

I think David really wants our hypotheses to be as precise as possible, so he's going to want to see "better than random" somewhere in your hypothesis section.

Thanks for the quick reply!

Thanks a lot for the constructive suggestions! I will modify the hypothesis to make it more specific.