Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cazinge"

Revision as of 05:44, 24 September 2017

Week 3 Feedback

• Everything was turned in on time—good job! You also fulfilled the “good habit/best practice” aspects of the assignment, including supplying comments for all 13 of the listed journal edits.
• You supplied an electronic notebook with this assignment, but it only covered the sed portion of the assignment and could still use additional detail. Openness and reproducibility are the values that we are after here: can someone reading your notebook get a clear understanding of what you did for this assignment? Do they have enough information to replicate the results that you posted on your journal page?
• Your hack-a-page work certainly fulfilled the instructions, but was the “shmoogle” image made by you? Or did you download it? Note how a thorough notebook (or acknowledgments) would answer this question before it even gets asked.
• Your list of links was quite thorough, including the cgi links for the reading frames, which I was hoping that students would catch. However…
• …I was also hoping that the values after seqdna in those links would be recognized by students as IDs. You listed element IDs, which are technically correct, but as noted there were other IDs on this page beyond those kinds.
• The note that you did this alone causes some concern. Was this your choice? Beyond your control? If the latter, please notify Dr. Dahlquist or myself in case it needs our inquiry or intervention. Fortunately, this assignment leaned toward the computer science side, toward which you are already comfortable. In other circumstances, not having a partner would have had more negative consequences.
• Your shared journal answers definitely align with my views and the views of others—to this day I still sometimes miss the occasional important character, and there is truly a need to keep doing what we’re doing in order to stay sharp.

—Dondi (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2017 (PDT)

Week 2 Feedback

• Your turned in most of your assignment on time, but your template was added late. You also made one small edit past the deadline on your shared journal entry. You were also missing the link from your User page to the Week 2 assignment. Please add these links to your template if you have not done so already.
• You wrote something in the summary field for 4 of 8 saves (50%) in the period of review; since you had only received the feedback about frequency after you submitted this assignment, I am expecting that this number will be improving in subsequent weeks.
  • As we discussed in class, you obviously cannot go back to fix this; we will be looking for improvement as the semester goes on. Missing a summary field here and there because you clicked "Save" too fast, is not a big deal. We aim to approach 100%, but anything above 90% is in the acceptable range.
• However, the number of total saves to your Week 2 journal entry is quite small (5). We are encouraging you to save your work in smaller "chunks"; a range of 10-20 saves is what would have been expected for this assignment.
• Your complementary DNA sequence was correct.
• Your translations were correct.
• Your determination of which frames contained ORFs was correct.
• We do not use 5' and 3' to mark the ends of protein sequences. Instead, we use N-ter and C-ter.
• I did not find any electronic lab notebook for this assignment. In this case, the lab notebook would have explained how you arrived at your answers to the questions posed in the exercise. Please be sure to keep your electronic lab notebook for future assignments.
• The technical language in articles from the primary literature is definitely a hurdle for students (and even for faculty from a different field), but keep with it. Like with other fields of endeavor, it is good to take a look at the primary source. I can go over splicing with you and the alpha helix/beta sheet structures of proteins. I have some 3D models in my office that may be helpful.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2017 (PDT)

Week 1 Feedback

• Thank you for completing the assignment on time.
• You completed all of the required content and skills except for the following list. You have the opportunity to make up the points you have lost on this assignment by completing the changes requested by the Week 3 journal deadline.
  • Please include Biological Databases and any other courses you are taking this semester in your list of upper division courses. Completed!
  • Please make an explicit statement about your career interests and goals. Completed!
  • You wrote something in the summary field for 7 of 11 saves, or 64%. We would like to see this approach 100%. Will do!
  • Please create a new wiki page (your Week 2 or Week 3 individual journal page will now fulfill this requirement). Completed!
  • You uploaded a file and linked to it on your page, but did not use the correct syntax so that a visitor to you page can click the link to download the file. Instead of using [[File:filename | visible label]], please use [[Media:filename | visible label]]. Completed!
  • You included a category on your page, but we would prefer you to use the category “Journal Entry” instead of “User Page”. Please make this change. Completed!
  • You did not create or invoke a template on your page. Please see the instructions on the Week 1 assignment and let us know if you have questions on how to implement this. Completed!
• I answered your question on my User talk page.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2017 (PDT)’’

I've updated the page and added all requested features. Cazinge (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2017 (PDT)