User talk:Zxy251/Final Term Paper

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

You could add the units and labels to the x and y axis of your graphs in the results section. (First 4 plots) You could also expand the future work section and include more references. --Robert Herd (talk) 4:51, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Term paper survey submitted with term paper?
    • Yes.


  • Significance of problem?
    • Yes.
  • Statement of hypothesis?
    • Yes.
  • List of references?
    • Yes, excellent reference list (26).
  • Properly formatted references?
    • Yes.

Model Description

  • State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
    • Yes; nice tables.
  • Term-by-term description of model components?
    • At least one of the terms should have been more thoroughly and carefully described. The description of the equations is somewhat hard to follow.
  • Have you described model assumptions?
    • Yes.
  • Description of equation simulation?
    • Yes.


  • Results described and compared to original paper?
    • Yes.
  • Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
    • Yes.
  • Figures and legends to show results?
    • Yes, but layout of figures to compare them with original figures is not very clear; also, descriptions of figures are somewhat brief and not always clear.
  • Discrepancies relative to original model?
    • Yes.
  • Uploaded Mathematica file?
    • Yes.


  • How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
    • Discussed; could be clearer.
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • Some literature discussed, not all supportive.
  • Limitations of results?
    • Well discussed.
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • Briefly discussed in Results section.
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Discussed, with references.
  • Discussion of future work?
    • Discussed, with some references.

Overall Term Paper Quality

  • How well was the model replicated?
    • Excellent replication.
  • Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
    • Understanding is good; because the writing it not always clear, it is sometimes hard to assess the understanding.
  • How well written is the term paper?
    • The term paper is much better written than the original benchmarks, but it still has many errors and is, at times, hard to understand.
  • How hard was the model extension that you did?
    • Not hard at all - a few parameters were varied. This is hardly a true extension of the model.
  • How good was the extension?
    • OK, but the results were fairly easy to predict in advance, and were not discussed in the Discussion section.
  • Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
    • Annotations are very minimal.
  • Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
    • Yes.

On the whole, a good to very good term paper. The writing and presentation of results could be much clearer, and the extension was very minimal.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (EDT)