add some

4_1.tex

@@ -183,17 +183,21 @@ we grouped all the projects into two groups:
 and \textit{Not-included} which contains the projects that does not include the documentation.
 Figure~\ref{fig:pop_age} presents the distribution of repository age in both groups in terms of each kind of documentation.
 The average age (in month) of repositories including 
-they \RDM, \LIC, \CON, \COD, and \TMP documentation is 
+the \RDM, \LIC, \CON, \COD, and \TMP documentation is 
 53.63 (median: 48.83), 53.17 (median: 48.62), 57.69 (median: 55.27), 47.46 (median: 42.20), and 53.62 (median: 47.75), 
 respectively.
 While the average age of repositories not including the documentation is 
 92.48 (median: 105.44), 57.28 (median: 50.93), 52.60 (median: 46.77), 54.74 (median: 50.07), and 54.04 (median: 49.67), respectively.
+We noted that 
+projects including a \RDM file, a \LIC file, a \COD file, or a \TMP are younger than those not including such a file, 
+and projects including a \CON file are older than those not including such a file.
 The significance of difference between \textit{Included} and \textit{Not-included} was tested with Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test~\cite{Wilcoxon1945Individual}. 
 As shown in Table~\ref{tab:age_test},
-we observed significant difference for the comparison regarding the \RDM, \CON, and \COD documentation (\textit{p-value} is less than 0.05),
-This indicates that 
-younger projects are more likely to include a \RDM file and a \COD file,
-but are less likely to include a \CON file.
+we observed significant difference for the comparison regarding the \RDM, \CON, and \COD documentation (\textit{p-value} is less than 0.05).
+
+
+% younger projects are more likely to include a \RDM file and a \COD file,
+% but are less likely to include a \CON file.
 % We conjecture that younger projects xxxxx.
 
 
@@ -201,7 +205,7 @@ but are less likely to include a \CON file.
 \begin{figure}[ht!]
 	\centering
 	\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{resources/repo_age.pdf}
-	\caption{Distribution of repository age in both groups.)}
+	\caption{Distribution of repository age in both groups.}
    \label{fig:pop_age}
 \end{figure}
 
@@ -243,10 +247,12 @@ The average community size of repositories including the \RDM, \LIC, \CON, \COD,
 respectively.
 While the average community size of repositories not including the documentation is 
 158.88 (median: 12), 293.27 (median: 76),249.66 (median: 82), 301.92 (median: 95), and 246.35 (median: 81), respectively.
+We noted that 
+projects including community profile documentation have larger community size than those not including the documentation.
+% projects with larger community size are more likely to include community profile documentation.
 The difference was also tested using Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, 
-and the test results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:fork_test}.
-We found that all the difference is significant,
-indicating that projects with larger community size are more likely to include community profile documentation.
+as shown in Table~\ref{tab:fork_test}.
+We found that all the difference is significant.
 % 解释
 Participants in OSS development are self-organized and distributed around the world~\cite{Raymond1999The, Crowston2007Self},
 who do not even know about each other.
@@ -287,10 +293,13 @@ Overall,
 the \RDM, and \LIC documentation is far more popular than the \CON,  \COD and \TMP documentation in OSS projects.
 Repositories of TypeScript are more inclined to include community profile documentation than repositories of other programming language.
 Organizations have higher chances of adding the \CON, \COD, and \TMP documentation in their projects than personal users.
-Younger projects are more likely to include a \RDM file and a \COD file,
-but less likely to include a \CON file.
-The likelihood of including community profile documentation 
-is increased when a project has larger community size.
+% Younger projects are more likely to include a \RDM file and a \COD file,
+% but less likely to include a \CON file.
+% The likelihood of including community profile documentation 
+% is increased when a project has larger community size.
+% Repositories including profile documentation 
+% are younger and have larger community size than those not including the documentation.
+Community profile documentation is more pervasive in younger repositories and repositories of larger community size.
 
 
 \end{framed}

6_conlusion.tex

@@ -12,9 +12,10 @@ the \RDM and \LIC documentation is far more pervasive
 and included earlier 
 than the \CON,  \COD and \TMP documentation in OSS projects.
 We found that repositories of TypeScript and repositories of larger community size are more inclined to include community profile documentation.
-We also observed that  the
-\CON, \COD, and \TMP documentation is more likely to be found in organizations' repositories than personal repositories.
-Younger projects are more likely to include a \RDM file and a \COD file than a \CON file.
+We also observed that community profile documentation is more pervasive in younger repositories, 
+organizations' repositories, and repositories of larger community size.
+% \CON, \COD, and \TMP documentation is more likely to be found in organizations' repositories than personal repositories.
+% Younger projects are more likely to include a \RDM file and a \COD file than a \CON file.
 We identified that 
 community profile documentation is mainly placed in the \textit{root} directory rather than the \textit{.github} or \textit{doc} directory.
 Moreover,