User talk:Jpp85/Benchmark IV: Discussion

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

  • You did a great job on your hypothesis section. It is very clear and concise.
  • Under your model limitations section, you have a typo in the last sentence: "virus's" should be "viruses". Additionally, it's not immediately apparent what the two limitations you listed in that sentence have to do with one another; maybe it would be better to separate them into two sentences or to clarify why the two ideas are related.
  • Under your discrepancies section, in the second paragraph, the syntax of your second sentence is a little awkward. Maybe instead of "The graph in question relates the amounts of cells HPV DNA is found in with time for various levels of oncogenic expression," you could re-word it to "This figure depicts the amount of cells in which HPV DNA is found over time for various levels of oncogenic expression."
  • Under your discrepancies section, in the third paragraph, second sentence, "asymptotic" should be "asymptote".
  • Under your discrepancies section, in your second paragraph, you state that you found the opposite result that the authors found. This is really interesting, and I think it would be good to discuss this a bit more, specifically what the biological implications of this discrepancy could mean.
  • Overall I think you did a good job on your discussion section. After fixing a few minor typos and adding some more explanation for the discrepancies you found, I think you will be ready to add this to your final paper.

--Alex Faidiga (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Benchmark submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Rubric submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
    • Discussed.
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • Very briefly discussed. This should be discussed in more depth and with more references.
  • Limitations of results?
    • Discussed.
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • Well discussed.
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Discussed, but this could be given more depth and should be based on further reading and references.
  • Discussion of future work
    • Not discussed.

On the whole, this is a good first draft of the Discussion section. More depth in different parts of the discussion, and more references, would make this an excellent discussion, but this is a good starting point.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2017 (EDT)