User talk:Jcm168/Benchmark II: Model Description
Some of the descriptions of the model parameters could be explained further. The explanation for the deficit model changes are well explained, and so are the model changes. I thought this was an excellent model description and can't think of what else to criticize. --Jacob Boitnott (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2017 (EDT)
As said previously, I think it would be helpful to explain more about what normal conditions and deficit conditions actually mean for the cell, in general terms. Not just when they are in either case based on the equations, but biologically how it is actually significant/what resources they need/are met etc. Otherwise, this section was formatted nicely and you did a good job of separating out the equations and explaining their components and variables. --Marlowe Susselman (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
- Term-by-term description of model components?
- At least a few of the terms need to be described more fully. For example, the verbal description of the only term in the eighth equation would be that “the overall rate at which the inactive membrane building blocks in the daughter cell are created is the degradation rate at which M goes to M* and M*d, times the concentrations of active membrane building blocks in the motor cell, and this reaction requires two such building blocks (i.e., it is second order in M).” Since there are many terms, you need not do this for all of them, but you should do it for many of them.
- Have you described model assumptions?
- Description of equation simulation?
On the whole, this is a very good to excellent first draft of the model description. Please elaborate on what each term means, as illustrated in the comments above. In the final version, you will also need to add information about the extension.