User talk:Mxk727/Final Term Paper
From BIOL 300 Wiki
- Introduction: The wording of the introduction is great, but the placement of the hypothesis makes it seem out of context with the background. I recommend integrating the hypothesis into the background paragraphs in order to eliminate this problem.
- Description: The captions on your tables read "Table 1 describes our 2 state variables. Table 1: State Variables". This is redundant, so put the captions underneath the tables and say "Table 1: The two state variables of our system". Great job with the equations. The paragraph on your simulation method is lacking in sentence variety; try to use something other than choppy simple sentences, like compound.
- Results: I could not distinguish between this section and your Discussion. You should add some titles at the beginning of the Discussion section. Fantastic job supplying additional visuals to aid in the understanding of your paper.
- Discussion: Strong conclusions, but no references; if you bring up additional studies that support or reject your hypothesis, be sure to cite them. Overall, fantastic paper with a few minor fixes required.
- Term paper survey submitted with term paper?
- Significance of problem?
- Yes, very clear.
- Statement of hypothesis?
- Yes, but should have been highlighted more clearly.
- List of references?
- Yes, but could have been more (12).
- Properly formatted references?
- One error; otherwise, fine.
- State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
- YeThis could have been done much more clearly. First, there are type setting errors, so that the Greek letter beta is sometimes referred to as b, which is confusing. Second, the dimensional state variables, L and C, should have been clearly related to the non-dimensioqnalized state variables x and y. Third, putting parameters and state variables in the same table (e.g, L and Lc, which are a state variable and a parameter, respectively) is very confusing.
- Term-by-term description of model components?
- Yes. The derivation of the final two equations from some of the subsidiary equations could have been described more clearly.
- Have you described model assumptions?
- Description of equation simulation?
- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Yes. Could have been stated somewhat more clearly.
- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- Figures and legends to show results?
- Discrepancies relative to original model?
- Discussed clearly.
- Uploaded Mathematica file?
- How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
- Well discussed.
- Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
- Yes, though many statements of the Discussion have no specific citations for them.
- Limitations of results?
- Yes, clearly discussed. No citations provided.
- Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
- None were found.
- Relationship to other work in the field?
- Well discussed; more citations would have been helpful.
- Discussion of future work?
- Yes, but without citations.
Overall Term Paper Quality
- How well was the model replicated?
- Completely replicated.
- Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
- Understanding is good but discussion of nonlinear dynamical analysis could be clearer.
- How well written is the term paper?
- On the whole, very well written.
- How hard was the model extension that you did?
- Moderately difficult.
- How good was the extension?
- Extension was good.
- Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
- Annotated, but could be better. Code from Jingyi not annotated.
- Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
- Not all figures generated.
Overall, this is a good to very good term paper. More depth of citations to the literature and greater clarity in describing the equations and the nonlinear dynamical systems analysis would have made it an even stronger paper.