User talk:Awm46/Benchmark III: Results

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

I have two main recommendations for you to take this paper from "good" to "fantastic";

  • There are a number of instances where you make a redundant statement. In the first paragraph alone, you say "that included all 8 of the state variables inside of it" (only say included, not inside of it), and that "along with that, we also have...that include" (only put we also have). This also comes in later paragraphs, where the presence of NDSolve in the code is mentioned three or four times without adding to the paper. I would go back through the paper and look for more examples of this.
  • Some of your figures look different from the original figures, but upon closer inspection, that is because the axes are different. If you cannot make the axes match, I would be sure to comment upon this in the paragraphs following the figures or in the discrepancies section.

--James Mcginnity (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Benchmark submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Rubric submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Results described and compared to original paper?
    • Yes
    • Please also recreate the plots in the insets for Figures 4 and 5.
  • Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
    • Yes
  • Figures and legends to show results?
    • Yes
  • Discrepancies relative to original model?
    • Yes
  • Uploaded Mathematica file?
    • Yes

Instead of saying "All of the models shown below...", say "All of the figures shown below...". The model is the set of equations.

"... and the parameters for each pathway can be found in the model plan." -- Should say "model description".

For all students' notebooks, I need to be able to start a fresh session of Mathematica, open the notebook, click Evaluation > Evaluate Notebook, and get results. I attempted to run your code, and it worked just fine. Please make sure that for the final paper this remains the case!

It is very important that you include detailed comments in your code, as well as clear statements indicating authorship (your work or your partners').

On the whole, this is a very good Results section. For the final paper, I recommend making the changes outlined here. Remember also to include results from your model extension for the final term paper in this section.

--Jeffrey Gill (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2017 (EDT)