User talk:Mxw433/Final Term Paper
From BIOL 300 Wiki
- Term paper survey submitted with term paper?
- Significance of problem?
- Statement of hypothesis?
- List of references?
- Properly formatted references?
- State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
- Term-by-term description of model components?
- Ye, but the specific details could have been specified a bit more completely; however, what’s there is good.
- Have you described model assumptions?
- Description of equation simulation?
- Yes, excellent.
- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Yes; figures are side by side; very nice!
- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- Figures and legends to show results?
- Discrepancies relative to original model?
- Yes - none were found.
- 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?
- Limitations of results?
- Well discussed.
- Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
- Yes - no discrepancies!
- Relationship to other work in the field?
- A good discussion with literature citations.
- Discussion of future work?
- A good discussion; it would have been good to have some literature citations for this section as well.
Overall Term Paper Quality
- How well was the model replicated?
- Completely replicated.
- Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
- Excellent understanding.
- How well written is the term paper?
- A few typographical errors, but very clear and easy to follow.
- How hard was the model extension that you did?
- Moderately hard extensions.
- How good was the extension?
- Results were interesting.
- Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
- Code was annotated, but could have been organized a bit more clearly.
- Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
- Figure 7 does not work; otherwise OK.
On the whole, this is an excellent term paper! Thank you for your hard work!