User talk:Asf45/Benchmark III: Results
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)
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Sort of
- Rubric submitted on time?
- 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?
- Uploaded Mathematica file?
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.