User talk:Tak89/Benchmark III: Results
Overall good report. I would suggest that you make the axes on the figures a little larger because the numbers were hard to read. Under figure 2a there is a small typo for dynamics. --Chiraag Lathia (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2017 (EDT)
Hello again, good results section. There is a typo in figure 1, typed give instead of given. Couple of notes: good to clarify significance of figure 3 (type II dynamics occur for a larger range of parameters than type I , hypothesis), significance of figure 2 could probably be explained more (how influx affects neutrophils ability to handle bacteria (shifts right, larger neutrophil levels needed to control bacteria, makes sense ). Rational for figure 4 should be included (no given parameters for data points, so this is the best estimate ). Overall likely better to clarify why type II explains behavior better than type I (likely it has more nuance; neutrophils have more settings than merely failing to control any bacterial and succeeding always: makes more sense that there are some neutrophil levels that can control small levels of bacteria and not large levels). Good work. --Janet Wang (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- Figures and legends to show results?
- Discrepancies relative to original model?
- This is not stated as clearly as it could be.
- Uploaded Mathematica file?
On the whole, this is a very good first draft. You do a nice job of explaining how you got the different components of the figures, and you also describe the relevance of the actual results in the figures to the underlying biological hypothesis. Make sure you write this as clearly as possible, though what you have here is very good. A strong extension will make this an excellent term paper. Keep up the good work!