# User talk:Zxy251/Final Term Paper

From BIOL 300 Wiki

## Contents

## 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.

### Introduction

- 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

- 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.

### Discussion

- 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)