Submission 468, Wigger/Moser

[mtwente]

Pull request

Proposed changes

• add submission 468 (received as PDF, transformed into qmd)
• format hyperlinks

Co-authored-by: Andreas Wigger [email protected]
Co-authored-by: Peter Moser [email protected]

Types of changes

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
• Enhancement (non-breaking change which enhances functionality)
• Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change).

Checklist

• I have read the README document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have mentioned all co-authors in the PR description as Co-authored-by: Name <[email protected]>.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• New Features
  • Introduced a new manuscript project configuration, allowing for streamlined processing and rendering in HTML format.
  • Added a comprehensive exploration of the role of films in rural history, detailing their significance as historical sources and communication tools.
  • Launched a Video Essays in Rural History series, combining historical footage with analysis for broader audience engagement.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The recent updates introduce a new project configuration file and a significant manuscript, focusing on the role of films in rural history. The _quarto.yml file establishes the project as a manuscript with HTML output, while the index.qmd presents an in-depth examination of agricultural films and their historical importance. Together, these changes enhance the framework for publishing and exploring audiovisual resources within academic research.

Changes

File(s)	Change Summary
submissions/468/_quarto.yml	Introduced manuscript configuration, specifying index.qmd as the main article and HTML output format.
submissions/468/index.qmd	Added comprehensive analysis of films in rural history, detailing their significance and related resources.

Poem

🐇 In fields of film, where stories bloom,
A tale of harvest in light's warm loom.
From reels of old, wisdom does spring,
Telling of change, of growth, and of spring.
Hoppy cheers for knowledge anew,
In every frame, history's hue! 🌾✨

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table.
  • @coderabbitai show all the console.log statements in this repository.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Additionally, you can add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL

Commits

Files that changed from the base of the PR and between ca413bc and 1ff7cf0.

Files ignored due to path filters (4)

• submissions/468/images/Figure1.jpg is excluded by !**/*.jpg
• submissions/468/images/Figure2.jpg is excluded by !**/*.jpg
• submissions/468/images/Figure3.png is excluded by !**/*.png
• submissions/468/images/Figure4.jpg is excluded by !**/*.jpg

Files selected for processing (2)

• submissions/468/_quarto.yml (1 hunks)
• submissions/468/index.qmd (1 hunks)

Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)

• submissions/468/_quarto.yml

Additional comments not posted (7)

submissions/468/index.qmd (7)

1-20: Metadata is well-structured and complete.

The metadata section is correctly formatted and provides comprehensive information about the submission, authors, and keywords.

---

23-36: Introduction is clear and engaging.

The introduction effectively sets the stage for the manuscript by highlighting the importance of digital tools in facilitating the use of films in historical research.

---

38-76: Historical context is well-presented.

The section provides a detailed and coherent narrative on the historical role of agriculture in film production, highlighting key developments and changes over time.

---

82-114: Research infrastructure description is accurate and clear.

The section clearly outlines the role and structure of the ARH/ERHFA film database and its significance in preserving rural film history.

---

126-150: Dual role of films is well-articulated.

The section effectively explains how films serve as both historical sources and influential media, providing a nuanced perspective on their role in historical studies.

---

152-183: Explanation of video essays is comprehensive and clear.

The section provides a thorough explanation of the limitations of written formats and the advantages of using video essays in historical research.

---

184-205: Footnotes and references are correctly formatted.

The footnotes and references provide additional context and are appropriately formatted. Ensure hyperlinks are functional.