How many points do we get for peer review?
Vanessa And Jeffrey Rough Draft / Discussion
Forum
» Hidden / Per page discussions
» Vanessa And Jeffrey Rough Draft
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Vanessa And Jeffrey Rough Draft.
Some people have the most petty concerns.
I was wondering if you could go into more depth about the V3 loop and what they are trying to do with drugs/treatments that would affect that area? Also, what does it mean for a mouse to be humanized? Finally, in paragraph 3 it says "gleading" and I think it should be "leading" as well as "breeched" instead of "breached". This paper reads really well and kept my attention the whole time. Good job!
I really liked your paper. It was well organized and writing style was easy to read. I may have missed it, but what exactly are gag, pol, and env?
Great job in the information in your paper. It was gerneally very complete with a few holes that are mentioned above and in your paper. One thing to watch out for is being specific enough. Example. you talked about percent of sequence similarities. However you never said of what. Is it the sequence of DNA that encodes for the proteins or is it the Amino acid sequence that makes up the proteins. You did This in a couple of places around your paper. I marked a couple of them, but i would double check it for more. Also you guys seemed to be a bit chatty in your paper. I think by making you writing more conside, you could easily cut a page or two in legnth. Also going along with tthis you seemed kind of redundant. IE saying mequaces are a non human primate model. This is kind of obvious becuase mequaces are NOT humans but are primates. I marked some of the other spots where i saw this, but double check again. Overall very good paper. I had to comment on the little nit picky stuff becuase the content of the paper was basically complete. So good job!
Nice paper. One thing I noticed was that you would use an acronym for something and then later repeat the original word with the acronym again For example towards the beginning you have dendritic cells (DC) and then you use DC for it but then later you have dendritic cell (DC) again. If this doesn't make sense tell me and I will explain it better. Another thing is avoid the use of it. try to be more specific. The last thing I have is for the last sentence you have it cited. it would look better to end the paper with your own sentence and not something from somebody else.
Awesome job so far you two! You did a fabulous job focusing on the right points at the right time. Paragraph structure was great and the paper was easy to follow. It kept my attention & was very interesting! My only suggestion at this point is to may differentiate between HIV & AIDs right away in the introduction because you kinda used them simultaneously. I'm sure everyone in this class understands the difference, but to an outside reader it may seem confusing when you state stats about AIDs and then move into developing an HIV vaccine. Speaking of stats though, you guys did a great job of researching that! Well done! :)
Solid paper you two! There were just a few bumpy sentences that interrupted the flow, but over all it read very nicely. My only concern is your consistency with using a hyphen on B-cell or T-cell, sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. I don't think it really matters which way you go, it just makes it more uniform if you use one way. I also agree with the idea that you should differentiate between HIV and AIDs, most people know the diff but I'm sure there are those few who are still a little confused about the correlation between the two. Overall though it was an amazing paper!
/forum/t-51257/vanessa-and-jeffrey-rough-draft#post-
