Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fabry:Homology based structure predictions"
Staniewski (talk | contribs) (→Spelling errors) |
(→Feeback) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Feeback == |
== Feeback == |
||
| + | |||
| + | Very well and structured wiki. I don't think the mass of tables is a problem here as their labels indicate what one is looking at. To get a general overview it'd be not as good but for an insight view this is exactly what one wants. The only problem I see are the pictures of the multiple alignments, where also the used proteins are shown. For MULTI 3 for example the picture only says "it's bad" as you see one giant protein mix. (Although the model could indeed look good). Maybe leave out the used MSA structures as they're shown before. All in all: great amount of information, thoroughly structured, very good choice of what to analyse. I don't know how to improve that anymore. |
||
| + | --[[User:Joerdensv|Joerdensv]] 9:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
Just finished your wiki. I like how you structured your wiki (although my "list of contents" looks a bit strange as everything after and including SwissModel seems to be shifted one step to the right). Sometimes I felt a little bit overwhelmed by the mass of tables. It was easy to understand and the spelling errors I found are listed below. I also really liked your approach with the variation of the active site alignments. --[[User:Bernhoferm|Bernhoferm]] 11:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
Just finished your wiki. I like how you structured your wiki (although my "list of contents" looks a bit strange as everything after and including SwissModel seems to be shifted one step to the right). Sometimes I felt a little bit overwhelmed by the mass of tables. It was easy to understand and the spelling errors I found are listed below. I also really liked your approach with the variation of the active site alignments. --[[User:Bernhoferm|Bernhoferm]] 11:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 08:01, 5 June 2012
Feeback
Very well and structured wiki. I don't think the mass of tables is a problem here as their labels indicate what one is looking at. To get a general overview it'd be not as good but for an insight view this is exactly what one wants. The only problem I see are the pictures of the multiple alignments, where also the used proteins are shown. For MULTI 3 for example the picture only says "it's bad" as you see one giant protein mix. (Although the model could indeed look good). Maybe leave out the used MSA structures as they're shown before. All in all: great amount of information, thoroughly structured, very good choice of what to analyse. I don't know how to improve that anymore. --Joerdensv 9:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Just finished your wiki. I like how you structured your wiki (although my "list of contents" looks a bit strange as everything after and including SwissModel seems to be shifted one step to the right). Sometimes I felt a little bit overwhelmed by the mass of tables. It was easy to understand and the spelling errors I found are listed below. I also really liked your approach with the variation of the active site alignments. --Bernhoferm 11:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- > (although my "list of contents" looks a bit strange as everything after and including SwissModel seems to be shifted one step to the right)
- Thanks, that's fixed. The wiki does not seem to like when you go deeper than three headline levels. Staniewski 12:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Spelling errors
- "In most of the cases..." better would be "In most cases..."
- "...we observe a slightly worse DOPE score a really bad Compactness value." missing "...DOPE score AND a really..."
- "MULTI 3 is considered nearly perfect, since its TM-score is only little less than 1." I guess you meant MULTI 1.
- "Comparing the local modal quality estimation of this model..." I guess "modal" should be "model".
Sorry for not listing where exactly they are, but STRG+F should be able to find them.
- Corrected all the above and other spelling mistakes I found. Thanks. Staniewski 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
