21  Editor’s template

### Editor checks:

- [ ] **Documentation**: The package has sufficient documentation available online (README, pkgdown docs) to allow for an assessment of functionality and scope without installing the package. In particular,
    - [ ] Is the case for the package well made?
    - [ ] Is the reference index page clear (grouped by topic if necessary)?
    - [ ] Are vignettes readable, sufficiently detailed and not just perfunctory?
- [ ] **Fit**: The package meets criteria for [fit](https://devguide.ropensci.org/policies.html#package-categories) and [overlap](https://devguide.ropensci.org/policies.html#overlap).
- [ ] **Installation instructions:** Are installation instructions clear enough for human users?
- [ ] **Tests**: If the package has some interactivity / HTTP / plot production etc. are the tests using [state-of-the-art tooling](https://devguide.ropensci.org/building.html#testing)?
- [ ] **Contributing information**: Is the documentation for contribution clear enough e.g. tokens for tests, playgrounds?
- [ ] **License:** The package has a CRAN or OSI accepted license.
- [ ] **Project management**: Are the issue and PR trackers in a good shape, e.g. are there outstanding bugs, is it clear when feature requests are meant to be tackled?

#### Editor comments