User talk:Asf45/Benchmark III: Results

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

You mention that the parameters don't quite match up compared to the original paper. It would have been nice to see what the parameters you used were in a table. In addition, I think you could interpret your graphs biologically more in depth and connect them back to your hypothesis. Otherwise, your figures are clearly labeled and everything looks pretty good! --Maria Kuznetsov (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2017 (EDT)

I feel more explanation on the meaning of the results and the biological implications would improve the results section as well as indicating the parameter values on figure 4. I also think that papers tend to be in third person, I think you are off to a good start otherwise --Janet Wang (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Benchmark submitted on time?
    • Sort of
  • Rubric submitted on time?
    • No
  • Results described and compared to original paper?
    • Yes, for figures that are present.
  • Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
    • Lightly in the figures that are present, a standalone assessment of your results vs. the hypothsis would be good.
  • Figures and legends to show results?
    • Figures present are well formatted, tables of parameter values to reference in your figure descriptions would be helpful.
  • Discrepancies relative to original model?
    • Yes
  • Uploaded Mathematica file?
    • No

What is present is very good, however for understood reasons this is a rather sparse entry. Filling in the parts mentioned above should help to make a very good results section in your final paper.

--Jonathan Sasse (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2017 (EDT)