Difference between revisions of "User talk:Zvanysse"

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:
  • The folder name, HTML filename, and title tag should all have been based on your gene's standard name, bro1. For example, the html filename should have been "bro1.html" instead of your two first names.
  • You did not provide the image file shown on your page in your folder, instead you linked to its source on the web via URL. Since you did not use the grnsight-screenshot.jpg image, it should have been removed from your folder.
  • You provided links to the source pages from each of the four different gene ID's, but it was not obvious that those were hyperlinks.
  • The intention in the assignment was that you should have provided in text citations for each piece of information, not just for the gene IDs. You had a list of references, but there weren't the corresponding in-text citations.
  • Also, please be in the habit of using complete APA-style citations for your list of references, not just hyperlinks.
  • The image you chose was really interesting! It would have been nice to at least have a title for the image so that the view could know what he or she was looking at.
• 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.
• You had one "leftover" element from the Bootstrap template you used, a stray "Dropdown" appears next to the DNA and protein sequence links.
• Otherwise, a clean-looking page with nice section breaks!

— Kdahlquist (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2017 (PDT)

More Week 4 Feedback

• I forgot to note above that you were missing your gene summary paragraph--be sure to add it to your Week 7 version.
• I want to note that you submitted both your individual and shared journal entries on time.
• Your electronic lab notebook was very brief. While I enjoyed reading more about your gene and why you chose it, the intention behind the notebook is to record the details of your process. You could have included more data about your gene and detail of how you constructed your page, including syntax.
• Be sure to use the APA format for your References section.
• You made a total of 14 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!
• What is meant by a "standard library" is that a collection of code is available for you to re-use and adapt. In this case, Bootstrap was the standard library.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2017 (PDT)

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 misses are:
  • I couldn’t find a link from the journal entry back to the user page.
  • Your journal entry page does not have a category.
  • Your user page does not have a link to the shared journal.
    • Note how the above issues would be addressed by having them in a template—consider doing that.
  • Your acknowledgments section is missing the wiki signature after the statement that the journal entry is your own work.
• You supplied an electronic notebook with this assignment, but it only covered the sed portion of the assignment. 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? Just expand your coverage to include all aspects of the week’s assignment, and don’t hesitate to supply details as needed.
• Your hack-a-page work certainly fulfilled the instructions, and thank you for the quick ego boost of seeing my name all over the place :)
• You certainly identified some links correctly, though all but the last (cgi-bin/translate…) were of the same kind: links to supporting files for the web page. But speaking of cgi-bin/translate, 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 chosen shared journal quote (and the sentiment you express after) is very much in line with one of my favorite computer science quotes, from Don Knuth I think, which states that programming languages aren’t intended to tell computers what to do, but to tell other programmers what you want the computer to do. This indeed goes into the core notion that programming languages are about communication between people.

—Dondi (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2017 (PDT)

Week 2 Feedback

• Thank you for turning in your assignment on time.
• The only link to your User page was found in your wiki signature. The category was also missing. Please add these links to your template and be sure to invoke it subesquent journal entries, if you haven't already.
• You wrote something in the summary field for 0 of 10 saves (0%) 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!
• The number of total saves to your Week 2 journal entry is was 8, which is a little lower than what we would expect for this exercise.
• Your translations were correct, except for leaving out one "A" from frame -1 and misreading "W" as "stop" twice. (Intersting side note, in some organisms one of the stop codons is translated as "W", just not in this exercise.)
• Your determination of which frames contained ORFs was correct.
• Technically, you should have given 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.
  • The conversion of T to U occurs during transcription. The decoding of the genetic code occurs duing translation.
• 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 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.
• In your Acknowledgments section, you left out the required statement (see the Week 1 assignment). This will be required each week.
• In the references section, please make sure you are providing a complete citation in APA format, not just a like to the resource you used.
• 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) 23:19, 23 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:

• 15 edits were made to your user page—a good, gradual pace—but only around 7 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.
• Three levels of headings were requested, but only two were noted in your submission.
• The Acknowledgments section did not have a wiki signature.
• No References section was seen (recall that, at a minimum, it should have had a link to the Week 1 instructions).

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

—Dondi (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2017 (PDT)