Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cwong34"

Revision as of 00:58, 25 September 2017

Week 3 Feedback

• Everything was turned in on time—thank you! You fulfilled most of the “good habit/best practice” aspects of the assignment, including supplying comments for all 13 of the listed journal edits. The sole miss is:
  • Your acknowledgments section is missing the statement that the journal entry is your own work and the wiki signature after that.
• You supplied an electronic notebook with this assignment, with headings to separate out the different sections of the journal. What is present is supportive of the openness and reproducibility 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? But don’t hesitate to supply details as needed—as written, it sounds like you got everything right on the first try. Is that true? If that is the case, then great. However it is hard to tell the difference between that or perhaps you did some trial and error first, or perhaps got stuck then asked for help. This aspect improves upon the openness of your process.
• Your hack-a-page work certainly fulfilled the instructions—I’m sure LMU would love to have a Netflix series made about it :)
• Your list of links (3 items) was shorter than I would have hoped, given how many there were (and their variety).
• Further, pre_text, output, and code are not IDs in the same sense that they are used in the assigned reading, particularly McMurry et al. IDs closer to the spirit of that reading would have been better. As a network resource, ...cgi-bin/translate... can be viewed as an identifier on its own, but I was also hoping that the values after seqdna in the cgi-bin/translate links would be recognized by students as IDs. You listed the action by itself, which is technically correct, but a finer grain was also present.
• For the curl/sed exercise, I was hoping that students would notice the output option that can be provided along with pre_text (you did notice it as indicated above; including it in your curl command would have been the next step). This option controls how the amino acids are displayed. Supplying output=Verbose to the curl command would have obviated the need for the sed commands that “spell out” the amino acid letters. Looking for additional options like this can sometimes save us a lot of work.
• Your chosen shared journal quote (and the sentiment you express after) certainly speaks to how ubiquitous the skill of coding/programming can appear to be. Indeed, I’ve noticed that some proficiency at this is helpful to anyone in almost any profession, because at a minimum it helps us to approach a problem in a constructive, step-by-step manner, whether or not the problem is a computational one.

—Dondi (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (PDT)

Week 2 Feedback

• Your turned in most of your assignment on time, but the category was added late. Please add the category to your template, if you haven't already. In the future, you will have taken care of this part of the assignment automatically by invoking your template on your journal entry page.
• You wrote something in the summary field for 10 of 16 saves (63%) in the period of review; since you had only received the feedback about frequency after you submmitted this assignment, I am expecting that this number will be improving in subsequent weeks.
• However, the number of total saves to your Week 2 journal entry is quite small (4). 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 translations were correct.
• Your determination of which frames contained ORFs was correct.
• However, you did not actually give the complementary DNA sequence, as requested. Instead, you converted the T's to U's to make an RNA sequence. Be careful to follow the directions and give what is asked for.
• Also, 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 notebok 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.
• In your Acknowledgments section, you left out the required statement (see the Week 1 assignment) and your wiki signature. This will be required each week.
• 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. Instead of just relying on your memory for terminology, you can always look something up online or in a text book or dictionary. I have to do that myself when I am reading something from a different field.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (PDT)

Week 1 Feedback

Thank you for submitting your work on time. Your Week 1 work has been reviewed, and the following points of improvement have been identified. Other than these items, your wiki skills and deliverables checked out OK:

• 19 edits were made to your user page—a good, gradual pace—but 3 of those were missing a summary message. Please strive to provide a summary all the time, no matter how small the change might be.
• Three levels of headings were requested, but only two were noted in your submission.

For your shared journal response, all requested items were noted. Thank you for answering the questions!

—Dondi (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2017 (PDT)