User talk:Cwong34

Week 11 Team Page Feedback (to address in Week 12)

Your team page hit the specifically-requested items listed in the Week 11 assignment, although the team template Template:Gene hAPI is somewhat underpopulated—continue reading to get further ideas on what can go there.

For Week 12, let’s focus on the stated overall purpose of these pages: “This page will be the main place from which your team project will be managed. Include all of the information/links that you think will be useful for your team to organize your work and communicate with each other and with the instructors. Hint: the kinds of things that are on your own User pages and on the course Main page can be used as a guide.”

Considering that purpose (and hint), you will also want to include the following on your team page. Imagine yourselves in deep work mode, with your team page open in a window. What information, links, and resources will you want to have available on that page at all times? Here are a few items:

• A projected schedule with due dates (both for milestones already defined in the guild pages and for internal accomplishments that your team determines) and meeting times. You can cross off these dates and times as your team makes progress using the s tag (strikeout).
• Communication resources (e.g., additional channels like Slack; GitHub issues; the discussion “side” of various wiki pages; etc.) that your team can use to coordinate when not face-to-face
• A section with links to uploaded files, particularly for use by data analysts but really for any member of the team; this can also include a link to your GitHub branch and the project’s fork
• Additional useful links—what links would be useful to always have there so that you can just click to visit them, minimizing typing? (for example, Template:GRNsight Gene Page Project Links has already been created for you—won’t that be useful to have on your page as well?)

Note how these items are very similar to the content that can be seen on our own Main Page—this is not a coincidence.

—Dondi (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2017 (PST)

I also want to note that Eddie did not sign his executive summary/reflection with his wiki signature. The citations in you annotated bibliography should also be added to your team page.

— Kdahlquist (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2017 (PST)

Week 9 Feedback

• The “good habit” aspects of your individual journal are completely fulfilled, and two days early too—great job!
• The electronic notebook has decent detail and is well-integrated with the GRNsight testing and API exploration results.
• GRNsight testing is complete with clear feedback on the results.
• The provided bash script specifies the instructions for arriving at the gene data, including the portions that get substituted based on the desired gene and the final URL that yields the gene data from the assigned source.

Shared Journal

Questions and “good habit” aspects are all fulfilled, all on-time. Favorite pages are stated alongside the reasons for these preferences.

—Dondi (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2017 (PST)

Week 7 Feedback

• The “good habit” aspects of your individual journal are all on point. Your electronic notebook shows excellent detail, effectively presented and organized, and your references section thoughtfully includes the multiple sources you consulted for this assignment.
• All prior web page issues were addressed—great to see that!
• Bootstrap grid layout and flex classes were seen in your page.
• The use of collapse is noted as one of the requested “advanced Bootstrap” features.
• The use of card is noted as the other “advanced Bootstrap” feature, though its usage does not really maximize its potential.
• Both XML and JSON web API calls were adapted from the starter code as requested.

Shared Journal

Questions and “good habit” aspects are fulfilled, all on-time. Good to hear that you are taking to the interdisciplinary mix well!

—Dondi (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2017 (PST)

Week 5 Feedback

(work in progress)

Shared Journal

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

—Dondi (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2017 (PDT)

Week 4 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:
  • You did not enclose your .html file and image inside of a folder, you only provided the .html file itself.
  • The HTML file should have been named after your gene, such as in "spt15.html" instead of your usernames.
  • Make sure to follow the convention of only using lowercase letters in filenames.
  • You did not actually provide the image files for your page; instead you used a URL link. Also, did you notice that one of the images was in the Russian language?!
  • The links for each of the gene IDs should have gone to the actual individual gene page, not just to the database's home page.
  • Your compare/contrast of content and presentation between the four source databases was a little brief.
  • Your references list is in a good APA-style format, but the link to Wikipedia was broken. You also should have provided in-text citations throughout your page.
• 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.
• Otherwise, a clean-looking page with nice section breaks!

— Kdahlquist (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2017 (PDT)

More Week 4 Feedback

• I want to note that you submitted both your individual and shared journal entries on time.
• The level of detail in your electronic lab notebook was good. I like especially that you noted some HTML syntax in your notebook. You could have included more information about your gene, though.
• You made a total of 25 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!

— Kdahlquist (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2017 (PDT)

   I want to note that Bootstrap itself is a standard library.

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 sole miss is:
  • Your acknowledgments section is missing the statement that the journal entry is your own work and the wiki signature after that.
• You supplied an electronic notebook with this assignment, with headings to separate out the different sections of the journal. 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? But don’t hesitate to supply details as needed—as written, it sounds like you got everything right on the first try. Is that true? If that is the case, then great. However it is hard to tell the difference between that or perhaps you did some trial and error first, or perhaps got stuck then asked for help. This aspect improves upon the openness of your process.
• Your hack-a-page work certainly fulfilled the instructions—I’m sure LMU would love to have a Netflix series made about it :)
• Your list of links (3 items) was shorter than I would have hoped, given how many there were (and their variety).
• Further, pre_text, output, and code 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. As a network resource, ...cgi-bin/translate... can be viewed as an identifier on its own, but I was also hoping that the values after seqdna in the cgi-bin/translate 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.
• For the curl/sed exercise, I was hoping that students would notice the output option that can be provided along with pre_text (you did notice it as indicated above; including it in your curl command would have been the next step). 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) certainly speaks to how ubiquitous the skill of coding/programming can appear to be. Indeed, I’ve noticed that some proficiency at this is helpful to anyone in almost any profession, because at a minimum it helps us to approach a problem in a constructive, step-by-step manner, whether or not the problem is a computational one.

—Dondi (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2017 (PDT)

Week 2 Feedback

• Your turned in most of your assignment on time, but the category was added late. Please add the category to your template, if you haven't already. In the future, you will have taken care of this part of the assignment automatically by invoking your template on your journal entry page.
• You wrote something in the summary field for 10 of 16 saves (63%) 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.
• However, the number of total saves to your Week 2 journal entry is quite small (4). We are encouraging you to save your work in smaller "chunks"; a range of 10-20 saves is what would have been expected for this assignment.
• Your translations were correct.
• Your determination of which frames contained ORFs was correct.
• However, you did not actually give 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.
• 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 notebok 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) and your wiki signature. This will be required each week.
• 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) 11:54, 20 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:

• 19 edits were made to your user page—a good, gradual pace—but 3 of those were missing a summary message. Please strive to provide a summary all the time, no matter how small the change might be.
• Three levels of headings were requested, but only two were noted in your submission.

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

—Dondi (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2017 (PDT)