User talk:Nak61/Benchmark IV: Discussion

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

In the first section, cite the study by Horowitz et al. Also when discussing the limitations and future work it would strengthen your points if you cited a source to support those ideas. Overall, very good conclusion and good explanation of our discrepenacies and limitations. --Thomas Schlechter (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

-In the first section, second sentence, say "The chance of..." instead of "Chance of". In the immediately following sentence, move the comma from after "hypothesis" to after "Therefore".

-The future work section seems vague in how many additional parameters you would add, and their importance to understanding the overall system. I would add some sort of number, and talk to the difficulty in expanding the model.

--James Mcginnity (talk) 09:47, 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?
    • Good
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • A good start, but more needed
  • Limitations of results?
    • Good
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • Very good
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Not addressed. You need to include a summary of related research, complete with several references.
  • Discussion of future work
    • Good

On the whole, this is a fair to good Discussion benchmark. You could make it into a very good Discussion by adding a nice discussion of the other work in the field, which is a required part of the assignment.

--Jeffrey Gill (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2017 (EDT)