Difference between revisions of "User talk:Emmatyrnauer"

Revision as of 02:23, 22 October 2017

Week 5 Feedback

(work in progress)

Shared Journal

Questions and “good habit” aspects are all sufficiently fulfilled; thank you!

—Dondi (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2017 (PDT)

Week 4 Partial Feedback

I am posting partial feedback on your Week 4 assignment, with respect to your favorite gene page because the Week 7 assignment will build on that.

• Your favorite gene page had all of the required syntax and content except as follows:
  • Your folder name and name for your HTML file was based on your last names instead of the gene standard name as requested in the assignment.
  • Your folder name and HTML filename should have been all lowercase letters.
  • You provided the image in the folder, but did not delete the grnsight-screenshot.html which was not used in your page.
  • Thank you for providing the in-text citations and references in APA format. However, because we have the power of HTML, it would have been nice to have URLs in the references provided as actual hyperlinks.
  • I did not see an actual summary paragraph about your gene.
• Aesthetics of the layout were not part of this assignment, but I want to note that as you revise this page, most of the text is flush with the left side of the browser window without any buffering "white space", making it a little difficult to read.
• Typically DNA and protein sequences are given in a "monospaced" or "fixed width" font, such as Courier, so the letters line up, which is what you saw on the parent databases.
• The carousel option for your reviews of the individual databases was a nice touch. However, since the length of the content for each "slide" is different, the page "jumps" when the slide is advanced. It might also be nice to either set the view time for each slide to be longer or disable the auto-advance because I didn't have enough time to read each slide.
• Otherwise, a clean-looking page with nice section breaks!

— Kdahlquist (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2017 (PDT)

More Week 4 Feedback

• I want to note that you submitted both your individual and shared journal entries on time.
• Don't forget to invoke your template on your individual journal entry page--you were missing the link back to your User page because of it.
• Your electronic lab notebook had a moderate level of detail about what you did, but could have included some of the results as well, gene data and some examples of code that you used for your web page.
• You made a total of 21 edits to the wiki in the window of review and wrote something in the summary field 100% of the time--keep up the good work!
• You had a complete list of references in APA format, but since this is a wiki, please make the URLs hyperlinks!

— Kdahlquist (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2017 (PDT)

Week 3 Feedback

• Everything was turned in on time—good job! You fulfilled all of the “good habit/best practice” aspects of the assignment, supplying comments for all 18 of the listed journal edits.
• You supplied an electronic notebook with this assignment, separated into a Notebook subheading for each section; the subheadings are a good idea and the content is in the right direction, supportive of the openness and reproducibility values that we are after here. Keep on doing this; note that a piece of information or action that you took is worth journaling if it helps inform either of these question: 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…I’m pleasantly surprised that you didn’t encounter any issues with a Facebook image (note how I wouldn’t have known this if you hadn’t indicated as much in your notebook!). Sometimes they limit linkable items from their feeds; good that you weren’t bitten by that here.
• You identified a sufficient number and variety of links correctly, including the cgi-bin action that does the actual transcription/translation. This appears not only as an action but also in bona fide a href links, and that ties in to the ID question…
• I was hoping that the values after seqdna in the cgi-bin 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. Further, pre_text and method="POST" 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.
• For the curl/sed exercise, I was hoping that students would notice the output option that can be provided along with pre_text. 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 shared journal’s chosen quote captures one of the biggest adjustments that people need to make when learning to work with computers—detail and specificity are indeed paramount in computing, beyond what we are used to in other endeavors. We all have frustrating moments when we realize that a lot of time might have been lost due to a single punctuation mark. It sounds like you aren’t deterred—don’t be! Indeed it is by continued exposure that you will gain the foundation you mentioned to increasingly make good use of the functions that are available to you on the command line.

—Dondi (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2017 (PDT)

Week 2 Feedback

• Your turned in most of your assignment on time, but you changed 5' and 3' to N-ter and C-ter after the deadline.
• You wrote something in the summary field for 13 of 15 saves (87%) in the period of review, which is very good. Remember, we are aiming for 100%.
• The number of total saves to your Week 2 journal entry before the deadline was 10, which is just within the range for this assignment.
• You were missing the Category "Journal Entry", please add it to your template and invoke your template on future journal entries.
• You were also missing a link back to your User page, except in your wiki signature in the Acknowledgments. Please add this to your template if you have not already and invoke your template in future assignments.
• Your complementary DNA sequence was correct.
• Your translations were correct, except that you substituted a G for the second W in the -1 frame.
• Your determination of which frames contained ORFs was correct.
• One note I will make is that you reversed your labeling of the +1, +2, and +3 strands with -1, -2, and -3. It is the convention to call the top 5' to 3' DNA strand the (+) frames and the bottom 3' to 5' DNA strand the (-) frames. That is because we normally report gene sequences in the 5' to 3' direction, left to right, and the top-strand would be considered the "mRNA-like" strand because it is in that orientation.
• 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.
• Not only do experimental descriptions use technical language, they presuppose familiarity with the procedures that those new to the field do not have. We assign this because, like with other fields of endeavor, it is good to take a look at the primary source. I can try to answer any specific questions you have, if you like.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 17:14, 21 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:

• 20 edits were made to your user page—a good, gradual pace—but only around five of those had a summary message. Please make it a habit to provide a summary, no matter how small the change might be.
• There is a difference between internal wiki links (double bracket) and external links (single bracket). The link on the main page to your user page is written out as if it were an external link, but it is more compact if written as an internal one.
• Commented-out content (<!-- -->) was not seen in your submission.
• You created a template correctly, but it is not used.

For your shared journal response, a link to the shared response from your user page was not seen. Thank you for answering the questions!

—Dondi (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2017 (PDT)