User talk:Emilysimso

2012-12-04

I've posted the text of my e-mail on Ron's User Talk page. — Kdahlquist (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (PST)

Week 12 Feedback

I've posted feedback and instructions for what to do next on Ron's User Talk page. — Kdahlquist (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (PST)

Week 6 Feedback

I’ve chosen to issue partial feedback sooner than complete feedback later, in case it will help you address issues with Week 8.

Best Practices

• Individual and shared work were both submitted on time.
• Requisite links to and from the user page as well as page categories are all present.
• Electronic notebook was maintained.
• Work was submitted in appropriate frequencies with corresponding summaries.
• This amounts to a “best practices” perfect score. Good work, keep it up!

Database Exercises

Work in progress.

—Dondi (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2015 (PDT)

Week 4 Feedback

• Work was submitted 2 days early—now that’s time management!
• All good-habit items are fulfilled:
  • All expected links and categories were noted.
  • Electronic notebook content was seen.
  • Summaries were consistently provided over 6 edits. That would be the one knock on the good-habit items—this assignment was sufficiently difficult so as to easily justify working in smaller chunks than you did.
• For the exercises, the following issues were seen; all others were correct:
  • You were off by one nucleotide on the transcription start site.
  • The incorrect stop codon was chosen.
  • Complementation was not needed for the mRNA strand. Further, the actual command (beyond the complement, which was incorrect to do anyway) was not supplied.
  • Because the mRNA was incorrect, then the resulting amino acid sequence was incorrect as well. Further, translation must only happen between start and stop codons inclusive. Finally, the intent of the exercise is a fully automated command sequence, without the need for human typing in between.
• Shared responses were provided and they came in on time.

—Dondi (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2015 (PDT)

Week 3 Feedback

• Work was submitted on time—keep it up!
• Nearly all good-habit items are fulfilled:
  • All expected links and categories were noted.
  • You were able to phase your work well, and consistently supplied a change summary to all of them.
  • You provided some electronic notes alongside your answers but they could have been more detailed, especially for the responses where the full command sequences were not determined (see below). These details can elaborate your intent or what you wanted the command to do, and can illuminate areas where further explanation might be warranted.
• Feedback on your exercise responses is as follows:
  • You got the complement right; small note, in your notes “complementary” was misspelled as “complimentary.” Understandable, but all the more reason to be vigilant for that.
  • For the reading frames, you got partway through them but missed some key information from the readings. These were not explicitly shown in class, but could have been gleaned from the supplied wiki pages and/or by communicating with your homework partner:
    • Reading frames 2, 3, –2, and –3 need to “skip” either one or two bases from the beginning.
    • The genetic-code.sed file is crucial in being able to systematically convert all codons to their appropriate amino acids.
    • You found the need for the rev command for negative-direction reading frames, but missed that, being in the 3'-to-5' direction the complements would then be needed for correct transcription.
    • Please come to office hours or set an appointment so we can talk through these missed steps in greater detail.
  • All responses for the xmlpipedb-match exercises are correct.
• Thank you for your shared responses. It is heartening to read that you are getting great support for your career choice at LMU, to counterbalance some of the questions raised by those from an earlier generation. Also noting that this is your first time with code, to echo the note above, let’s find some extra office hours time to get you a little more practice and exposure with this strange new way of interacting with a computer :)

—Dondi (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2015 (PDT)

Week 2 Feedback

• Although, the Week 2 scores have not yet been posted, I want to give you feedback on the assignment that you can incorporate to your your Week 3 submission.
• First, thank you for submitting your assignment on time.
• Your translations are correct; although it would have been better for completeness to go ahead and translate the rest of the sequence after the stop codon, in this case.
• You did not include anything by the way of an electronic notebook for this assignment. Although this assignment was pretty straightforward, you still need to document the process of what you did to arrive at the answers, not just supply the answers. Please be sure to do this for your Week 3 submission.
• You wrote something in the Summary field for 26/26 contributions between the Week 1 and Week 2 deadlines, keep up the good work!
• For each week's assignment, you will need to create links from your User page to that week's assignment and to your individual and shared journal entries, as well as a link back from your individual journal entry and to the category "Journal Entry".
  • You are missing all of these on your Emilysimso Week 2 page.
  • However, all of these links, except for the link to your User page actually exist on your template, "Esimso entries etc". So all you have to do to remedy this situation is:
    1. Add a link to your user page on your template.
    2. Invoke your template on your week 2 journal entry page by using the syntax {{Esimso entries etc}}.
  • You could even go ahead and create all of your future individual journal entry pages by invoking your template on them and never have to worry about losing points for this part of the assignment again.
• If you begin a line with a single space character, the text will appear in a fixed-width font, which is better for representing nucleic acid and protein sequences because they will then line up with each other better.
• With regards to your comments on your shared journal entry, the Nirenberg article is difficult because it is filled with experimental detail to which you may not have been previously exposed. However, I also think it's a good exercise to go back to the original source sometimes and read about discoveries from "the horse's mouth" so to speak.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2015 (PDT)

Week 1 Feedback

• I have answered your question on my User talk page.
• Thank you for submitting your work on time.
• While the scores for the Week 1 assignment have not yet been posted, I want to give you feedback on the assignment.
• You entered something in the Summary field 100% of the time. Keep up the good work!
• The following items are either missing or need to be tweaked:
  1. You have a stray bullet point under the section describing your favorite aspect of computer science. This happened because you started your list with two asterisks without having a bullet point with just one.
  2. You uploaded your resume as a file, but I suggest you change the filename to something with your name in it. Using a generic filename like you did makes it difficult for other people to keep track of your file and could be mistaken for someone else's file.
  3. Please remove the "shared" category from your User page, because that page is not technically shared.
  4. You have neither created nor used the template. Please let us know if you need assistance with this because you will want to use it for the rest of the semester.
• You will have the opportunity to make up the points that you missed on this assignment by making corrections by the Week 2 journal deadline on midnight, September 15.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2015 (PDT)

I’ve answered your question on my talk page.

—Dondi (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (PDT)