User talk:Jpp85/Benchmark IV: Discussion
From BIOL 300 Wiki
- 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.
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
- 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?
- 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.