User talk:Msaeedi23

Week 12 Feedback

• I did not see a short progress report from you on your team's home page for Week 12.
• I gave feedback on the next steps for your microarray data analysis and posted them on Lena's User Talk page.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 12:17, 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.
• Some requisite links to and from the user page as well as page categories are missing:
  • The link from the individual journal page back to the user page was missed.
  • The journal entry category was missed.

Please note that these best practices, when followed, expedite the navigation and review of your work. It saves clicks, and for grading purposes, those clicks add up.

• Electronic notebook was maintained.
• Work was submitted in appropriate frequencies, but many submissions did not have corresponding summaries, defaulting only to the section title that was edited.

Database Exercises

Work in progress.

—Dondi (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2015 (PDT)

Week 4 Feedback

• Work was submitted on time.
• All good-habit items are mostly fulfilled:
  • All expected links and categories were noted.
  • Electronic notebook content was seen.
  • Summaries were provided for all but one of the submitted edits (though the edits were in decent chunks, so that was good).
• For the exercises, the following issues were seen; all others were correct:
  • The command given for the –10 box is missing the -r option that makes the {n} shortcut possible.
  • You were off by one nucleotide on the transcription start site.
  • The terminator is not correctly tagged due to a missing line break (\n) that should have been part of the given command sequence.
  • The mRNA strand “inherits” the off-by-one error for the transcription start site, plus the electronic notebook commentary that accompanied your answer does not go into sufficient detail to indicate how exactly the commands chose (a) how the lines are to be broken up for deletion and (b) how the right lines can then be specified for this deletion.
  • For the amino acid sequence, the codon-to-amino-acid step is applied at the wrong time, resulting in incorrect results.
  • As a general note, be careful when you use direct markup tags such as <code></code>. A closing tag is missing at one point—you can tell because the formatting looks off for a few paragraphs when they shouldn’t look like code—and a key skill in using these tags is not forgetting to do this.
• Shared responses were provided and they came in on time.

—Dondi (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2015 (PDT)

Week 3 Feedback

• Work was submitted on time—keep it up!
• In addition to the early feedback noted below regarding good-habit items, all expected links and categories were noted.
• For your exercise responses:
  • Complement is correct.
  • Reading frames 1 and –1 are correct.
  • Reading frames 2, 3, –2, and –3 are incorrect: they do not include the enforced triplet grouping that makes the genetic code conversion take place on the right nucleotide triplets, and the “chopping” of unused bases for these reading frames adds a space in their stead. This latter is not necessarily incorrect, but makes the former step of breaking the bases up into the correct triples more difficult.
  • Your xmlpipedb-match responses are correct, except that for the second question, just saying that you used grep and more is insufficient. Additional details like what pattern you used in grep or how exactly more helped you with looking at the file will help a reader replicate what you did.
  • It is good that you tried out the code tag to help with formatting your responses, but make sure to always include the slash / in the closing tag so that the format doesn’t incorrectly “run past” the intended code section.
• Thank you for your candid shared responses. I will try to supply additional details about the future commands that will be shown in class, as well as explain the results more thoroughly. For your part, please do not hesitate to raise your hands to ask questions or request clarifications. As Dr. Dahlquist mentioned earlier in the semester, your raised hand is your “handbrake” to ensure that the class can slow down to explain something further. Please use it when necessary.

—Dondi (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2015 (PDT)

Week 3 Early Feedback

My week 3 grading is not finished, but based on your week 2 feedback and what I have seen so far in Week 3, I thought I would chime in early so you can try to address these by the week 4 assignment.

• Good job in supplying a summary with all of your wiki contributions in Week 3! This is a good habit to maintain throughout the semester. You also accomplished this with a few more edits, which is also something to reinforce.
• A lab notebook aspect continues to be missing from your Week 3 submission. Your responses are almost entirely just the answers, with no notes on your thought process. As the computing assignments get harder, you will find this to be more and more crucial. Please give it a shot for Week 4.
• You did fine with this previously but missed it in Week 3, so this is more of a reminder not to forget it in Week 4: Make sure to do the ~~~~ signature under your shared journal entry. This not only puts a stamp on your work but also provides convenient links to your user and user talk pages.

That’s not everything yet, but I figured these were good points to make so that you can get a jump on them for Week 4.

—Dondi (talk) 11:48, 24 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.
• 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 17/35 contributions between the Week 1 and Week 2 deadlines. We are aiming for 100%, so you have some work to do. Also, you completed the full assignment in only 3 edits to the wiki. This suggests that you might be doing the assignment outside of the wiki and then pasting it in. You should do the assignment "natively" in the wiki. If this is not the case, you will still want to consider saving your changes more frequently so that the granularity of the changes is smaller.
• With regards to your comments on your shared journal entry, you were not the only one who had issues with the Kaji & Kaji article. A lot of the time, short scientific papers are more difficult to understand than longer ones!

&mdash: Kdahlquist (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2015 (PDT)

Week 1 Feedback

• I have answered your question on my User talk page.
• The scores have not been posted yet, but I wanted to give you feedback on the Week 1 assignment.
• Your individual assignment was completed on time, but your shared journal entry was late (submitted 01:15). In the future, make sure that you give yourself enough time to complete the assignment by the deadline.
• I've noted the items that are missing from the assignment or tweaks that will make your page look better below.
  1. Check the formatting of your two e-mail addresses to make sure that that was what you intended. When you begin the line with a space character, the formatting will show up in a box with courier font. It would look better for both addresses to be the same format.
  2. For your snail mail address, please provide a complete address to your LMU mail box.
  3. It's exciting that you have a publication already. You should highlight this by giving it its own bullet point and linking to the article online (or at least the abstract on PubMed).
  4. Under your favorite aspects of computer science, "piques" is spelled incorrectly as "peaks".
  5. You have written something in the Summary field about 47% of the time. You should aim to write something there 100% of the time.
  6. As alluded to in your e-mail message, you have an issue with your template. You have created your template page OK, but you need to actually invoke the template on your User page, so that it actually gets use. To do so, put the syntax {{msaeedi23}} in the place you want it to appear. This will take care of the items of creating a new wiki page and linking to an internal site on the wiki which are not currently showing up on your User page. There is also an extraneous link to a different template with a different page name that you should remove.
  7. You created an external link to http://www.lmu.edu, but there is a stray "[" next to the link. Remember, you use double square brackets for an internal link and single square brackets for an external link. Similarly, on your wiki signature on my User talk page you have an extra set of double square brackets because when you use the wiki signature shortcut ~~~~, it actually does it for you.
  8. In terms of your headers, make sure that you have the same number of equals signs on either side of the header. There are a couple of places where you need to fix this. Wiki convention dictates that you start with 2 equals signs "==" because the page itself starts with one equals sign and everything else should be a subset of the page. You should therefore go down one more level to four, or "====".
  9. In terms of your numbered list, it might look better to use the syntax "#*" under TriBeta since there is only one item there.
  10. Please remove the extraneous "Loyola Marymount University" category from your page.
  11. You need to "comment out" something. When you are editing the page, surround some text with <!-- and --> so that it will only appear in the edit window and not on the page.
  12. The link from your User page to the shared journal entry is missing, but will be there once you invoke your template correctly.
• You will have the opportunity to make up the points you lost by making the corrections noted below by the Week 2 assignment deadline of midnight, September 15.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2015 (PDT)

I’ve answered your question on my talk page.

—Dondi (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2015 (PDT)