Taking this for review

Can you provide direct downloadable links for SPEC and SRPM? Though links given are opening in browser but they are not downloadable via "wget" command.
I think you should click on those links and get the raw links and paste it here.

Thank you Parag AN for thaking this for review.

the raw links for spec file and srpm are:

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/girish946/plot-cat/master/plotcat.spec
Srpm URL: https://github.com/girish946/plot-cat/raw/master/dist/python-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc24.src.rpm

Issues:
=======
1) Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: plotcat.spec should be python-plotcat.spec
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name


2) Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C tool to plot live serial input

==> Start with a capital letter

python2-plotcat.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v3
==> The valid license tag is "GPLv3", see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses

python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-documentation
==> This is okay as there really is no documentation files available in source tarball.

python2-plotcat.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python
python2-plotcat.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python2-plotcat.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/plotcat.py /usr/bin/env python
python2-plotcat.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/plotcat.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
==> You can fix this in %prep section as
sed -i -e '/^#!\//, 1d' *.py

python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py-2
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py-2.7
==> This is okay as there is no man page provided in source tarball

3) Add some detailed description about your package. Just see the text you have in README.md

corrections made:
=================

1) Renamed plotcat.spec to python-plotcat.spec

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/girish946/plot-cat/master/python-plotcat.spec

Srpm URL: https://github.com/girish946/plot-cat/raw/master/dist/python-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc24.src.rpm

2) solved Rpmlint issues.

3) description added in %description section in .spec file

> %if 0%{?fedora}
> %global with_python3 1
> %endif
drop this as it doesn't work anyway fo your case.

> License:        GPLv3
I think it's GPLv3+

> BuildRequires:  python-setuptools
BuildRequires: python2-setuptools

> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/

> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/

* I think you don't need to do symlinks for binary. I think they both provide same result independent on python version.

sorry I will be late in posting my further review comment here. Please wait.

1) The keyword here "Upstream" is not correct for this bugzilla, hence I removed it.

2) I missed to ask do you want to add this package to epel7. If no them remove all if...else added in spec file which may look almost same as by running "pyp2rpm plotcat".

But if you want to add it to epel7 then just need to move following BR: inside python3-plotcat package.
BuildRequires:  python3-setuptools
BuildRequires:  python3-devel

3) The pyp2rpm is adding the BuildRequires: python-setuptools which should have been python2-setuptools for Fedora specific builds,but again if you want to add this package to epel7 then keep BR: python-setuptools else change it to BR: python2-setuptools.

4) symlink is not needed for this package so it can be removed. Again it looks its added by the usage of pyp2rpm. Remove following lines
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
cp %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/live_plot.py %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/live_plot.py-3
ln -sf %{_bindir}/live_plot.py-3 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/live_plot.py-%{python3_version}

cp %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/live_plot.py %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/live_plot.py-2
ln -sf %{_bindir}/live_plot.py-2 %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/live_plot.py-%{python2_version}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and then from the %files section as well. Just install live_plot.py file.

But then you should be having properly set python shebang in live_plot.py file. Hence, change in you spec file
sed -i -e '/^#!\//, 1d' *.py
to
sed -i -e '/^#!\//, 1d' plotcat/*.py


5) And yes add the trailing "/" as suggested by Igor in above comment.

6) Indeed after looking into LICENSE file and source files, the license is "GPLv3+" not just "GPLv3" because there is a "or later version" clause in LICENSE file.



Provide updated SPEC and SRPM.

I've updated the spec file and srpm

Specfile Url: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/girish946/plot-cat/master/python-plotcat.spec

Srpm Url: https://github.com/girish946/plot-cat/raw/master/dist/python-plotcat-1.0.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm

the rpmlint issues are fixed.

koji builds: 
       rawhide : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15760013
       epel    : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15759967

We have this process, 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to 
get sponsored into the packager group. Can you either submit few more packages 
and/or some full detailed package reviews? This is needed to make sure package 
submitter understands the rpm packaging well and follows the fedora packaging 
guidelines.

Please go through the following links
1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process

2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines

3) To find the packages already submitted for review,
   check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/

4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines and
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer is useful 
   while doing package reviews.

5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help
   review packages in fedora. You need to use this and do un-official package 
   reviews of packages submitted by other contributors. While doing so mention 
   "This is un-official review of the package." at top of your review comment.

Good to review packages listed in http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html

When you do full package review of some packages, provide that review comment 
link here so that I can look how you have reviewed those packages.

If you got any questions please ask here or on Freenode IRC join #fedora-devel :)

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
1) Changelog should be added for every change. I see only one changelog entry. Can you correct this and provide updated SPEC and SRPM links. Only you need to add new changelog entry and what changed from previous release to this new srpm release.

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1374024-python-
     plotcat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     python2-plotcat , python3-plotcat
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: python2-plotcat-1.0.0.1-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python3-plotcat-1.0.0.1-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          python-plotcat-1.0.0.1-2.fc26.src.rpm
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py
python3-plotcat.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
python3-plotcat.noarch: W: no-documentation
python3-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-documentation
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
python3-plotcat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    python(abi)
    python3-matplotlib
    python3-pyserial

python2-plotcat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    pyserial
    python(abi)
    python-matplotlib



Provides
--------
python3-plotcat:
    python3-plotcat
    python3.5dist(plotcat)
    python3dist(plotcat)

python2-plotcat:
    python-plotcat
    python2-plotcat
    python2.7dist(plotcat)
    python2dist(plotcat)



Source checksums
----------------
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/plotcat/plotcat-1.0.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : fb1c13a58def85d3d69fa4bf62620860e74cde8fff199177ada7b79df9fb5c1e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fb1c13a58def85d3d69fa4bf62620860e74cde8fff199177ada7b79df9fb5c1e


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1374024 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

This message is a reminder that Fedora 24 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 2 (two) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 24. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version'
of '24'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version'
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not
able to fix it before Fedora 24 is end of life. If you would still like
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Fedora 24 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2017-08-08. Fedora 24 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.