User talk:Zxy251/Benchmark IV: Discussion

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

Overall strong paper - well organized and touches upon the main points. You could expand a little on the literature relationship section. There are couple of typos. In the model and hypothesis section accumulated and potential is misspelled. In model limitation, mutations and general is misspelled. --Chiraag Lathia (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2017 (EDT)
In the model limitation, "The tumor usually considered as a tissue ", should be "The tumor is usually considered as a tissue ".
"All these cancer cells together causes the tumor tissue that is quite complicated and hard to cure", causes should be cause.
You also need reference to support your statements. For example, in your second assumption, you mention that "the cells won't become cancer cells by just three mutations", where does this conclusion come from? I mean it is understandable but you need reference to support your statement.
--Jingyi Yang (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

While I picked up what you were putting down, it would have been nice to see a few more sources to support your claims, especially by expanding the literature section. A few words like presence (in the future work paragraph) are misspelled and the flow can be choppy at times. I recommend that you take another look or read the discussion out loud to get a feel for it. This was a really strong start, just needs a little expanding! --Maria Kuznetsov (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2017 (EDT)

There are a few grammatical errors in your discussion. Mainly misspelled words In the section Model & Hypothesis: Change accumualted to accumulated; pontential to potential In the section Model Limitation: Change mutaions to mutations; generl to general; requries to requires; accumualted to accumulated In the section Change presecense to presence; metheod to method; and practise to practice --Robert Herd (talk) 11:04, 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?
    • Discussed.
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • Mentioned but not carefully discussed.
  • Limitations of results?
    • Discussed at length; needs supporting references.
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • Not discussed.
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Much too briefly discussed.
  • Discussion of future work
    • Discussed, but more references needed.

On the whole, this is a fair to poor first draft of the Discussion section. It has several problems that need to be fixed. First, the writing is poor: there are many typographical errors, syntax and grammar errors, and the language used is often too informal (e.g., “tons of different mutations”). You should make sure to work with the Writing Center to ensure that your final term paper is clear, readable and free of errors. Second, the formatting of the citations is wrong. Use the Help link to fix this. Third, you need to read the literature carefully and use it to provide support for many, many statements that you currently make that have no references associated with them. You only cite 4 references, which is far too few for a scholarly, thoughtful Discussion section.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2017 (EDT)