User talk:Jcm168/Benchmark III: Results
Pretty clear and detailed~ For the hypothesis, I think the authors have also hypothesized that the intracellular subcompartments' synchronization can still be seen when considered volume expansion (as parameters change and volume change all happen in real life and they wanted to see if the model works under perturbations...) For explanation of Fig 5a, I think it's better not to mention "with a new daughter cell produced" because readers would probably think that the second oscillation occurs in the daughter cell..which is not true because daughter cell always starts at its deficit state. A little suggestion, you could probably compare Fig 8a and Fig 5a, eg. cell cycle is shortened. --Alexis Wu (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
- "Of the nine figures presented in the paper, only figures five through nine and produced using the model and not just visual descriptions of the model itself." ... this sentence is a little confusing. Did you mean to say "of the nine figures presented in the paper, only figures five through nine were produced using the model and were not visual descriptions of the model itself?"
- "Figure five contains five sub figures showing various state variables of the system in normal conditions" ... what is the system? The synthetic cell?
- "Too show the robustness" .. should be "to"
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- Figures and legends to show results?
- Discrepancies relative to original model?
- Yes - no discrepancies!
- Uploaded Mathematica file?
On the whole, this is an very good to excellent first draft of the term paper; well done! The extension will be important for making this a truly excellent term paper. Keep up the good work!