User talk:Emmatyrnauer

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)