User talk:Tak89/Benchmark I: Introduction
Personally I thinks that the significance of the research part is well-elaborated. However, for the second part of the introduction, more description and background information of Type I dynamic and Type II dynamic should be provided.--Dominic Chen (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2017 (EDT)
I think the introduction you put together was overall really good. For the first part, maybe you could talk about what exactly a neutrophil is so that we can understand the how important it is to the body's function. In the second paragraph, I am a bit confused as to what you mean by Type 1 and Type 2 dynamics for the two tested hypotheses. Maybe you could elaborate on what those two things mean in the paper. --Lexi Meglio (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- Significance of problem?
- A good start, though much more could be said about how neutrophils function. How do they interact with bacteria? Apart from the fact that they are the most abundant, what is their role? Give us some background on how the immune system works. This will be important for understanding the biological motivation for implementing Type II dynamics in the model.
- Statement of hypothesis?
- Your hypothesis is roughly equivalent to "Modeling with Type II dynamics matches the data better". "Type II dynamics" is just a name given to a class of system dynamics that doesn't tell me much about what the neutrophils and bacteria are actually doing. What you should instead focus on in your hypothesis statement is the biological motivation/justification for building these dynamics into the model. What does it mean for the neutrophils to have Type II dynamics? And what data does the Type I model not fit? When the Type II model then fits the data well, you can say that the biological motivation is supported. That would make for a much stronger hypothesis.
- You've framed the topic as if there is a debate in the field as to whether or not the dynamics are Type I or Type II. If this is correct, and your model aims to show that it's Type II, then you should present the evidence provided by the opposition as well, so that the reader can believe you that the evidence for Type II is stronger.
- I think it's better to lowercase "Neutrophil Concentrations and Bacterial Population/Influx" when you aren't referring specifically to variables in your model.
- It's not clear from this what "Type I" and "Type II" dynamics are. Can you provide some description of how they differ?
- List of references?
- Very good, but some references appear more than once. See this guide on how to reuse citations properly, and how to clean up your wiki code so that prose and citations are separate.
- Properly formatted references?
On the whole, this is a fair Introduction. I think there is still a lot of room for improvement, but it is a good start. For the final paper, I recommend making the changes outlined here.