User talk:Rah175/Benchmark I: Introduction

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

For this introduction, the first thing that I see is that you only cite one source. You have a decent amount of background info that appears that it would have come from multiple sources. More sources would also add to the depth and quality of the introduction. Your hypothesis also has some terms that were not explained in your introduction that probably should be in order for the reader to get a better understanding of your model- such as memory recovery timescale parameter a. The relation of your introduction and your hypothesis is not completely clear.--Thomas Schlechter (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

As mentioned by the other commenters, it is a serious issue that you only have one source cited. It seems that you should have quite a few more sources based on the information you have written. I also feel that you failed to provide a good explanation for your hypothesis. You don't explain what timescale parameter a is and what effect it has on the alpha and beta waves. You should provide enough background such that your hypothesis makes logical sense. --Michael Hasson (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Benchmark submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Rubric submitted on time?
    • Yes
  • Significance of problem?
    • Description of narcolepsy - no references for the first paragraph. Only one reference in the second paragraph which is not relevant to much of the material in that paragraph.
  • Statement of hypothesis?
    • There is a statement of a hypothesis, but the distance between the model that you are reconstructing and the ability of that model to test a clinically relevant hypothesis is huge, and without a careful, detailed argument, your hypothesis will not be tested by the model.
  • List of references?
    • Only one.
  • Properly formatted references?
    • Yes

On the whole, this is a poor first draft of the Introduction to your term paper. Most of your statement have no citations to back them up - a scholarly paper is based on prior work done in the field, and each statement is based on careful citations. The model that you propose to build is not a detailed model of the neuroanatomy that underlies narcolepsy, so it is not clear that you can test the hypothesis with the model that you are building. You are strongly encouraged to re-submit an improved Introduction.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2017 (EDT)