Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 6 unresolved discussions.

book_award_analyzer.py, line 5 [r1] (raw file):
Generally you don't want to post API keys on github since it's public. Instead, you can make a separate file (i.e. a config or auth file), import that, and add a .gitignore so that it doesn't ever get pushed to github.

If you're concerned about security and whatnot, it may be worth looking into git rebasing.

book_award_analyzer.py, line 39 [r1] (raw file):
Did you consider using .lower() here?

book_award_analyzer.py, line 47 [r1] (raw file):
Could be nice to add some in-line comments in this section for future ref/for those unfamiliar with BeautifulSoup.

book_award_analyzer.py, line 85 [r1] (raw file):
If you took this from stackoverflow, it'd be good to acknowledge it in the docstring here.

book_award_analyzer.py, line 157 [r1] (raw file):
Awesome that you're using indico!

write_up.pdf, line 0 [r1] (raw file):
Nice job on the report and addressing all the questions/comments. Good that you acknowledge an alternative method in implementation for search, and the if check is interesting - didn't realize that trend in Wikipedia before.

23 books is a small sample size (esp. with your note about how some didn't have summaries or even Wikipedia pages) so +1 for the disclaimer of "unscientifically extrapolate[d] information."

Comments from the review on Reviewable.io