Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homology modelling TSD"
From Bioinformatikpedia
Staniewski (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Unfortunately we are not ready yet :) |
Unfortunately we are not ready yet :) |
||
| + | *We are by now, sorry it took so long |
||
So, just a formal note for the moment. Someone taught me that captions go below figures, but for tables, it has to be above. I do not have a good reference for that, the best one I could find is [http://monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/science/process/2.1.xml this] in Section Labelling. [[User:Staniewski|Staniewski]] 14:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
So, just a formal note for the moment. Someone taught me that captions go below figures, but for tables, it has to be above. I do not have a good reference for that, the best one I could find is [http://monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/writing/science/process/2.1.xml this] in Section Labelling. [[User:Staniewski|Staniewski]] 14:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | * Iv'e never seen it anywhere ... I prefer the LaTeX style but I'll look around for more information on that |
||
| + | * Thinking about it, you might be right. The Latex package booktabs which is meant for more professional looking tables also puts them on top -jonas |
||
<br><br> |
<br><br> |
||
| Line 9: | Line 12: | ||
*As usual there are only very tiny things to "criticise" |
*As usual there are only very tiny things to "criticise" |
||
**What does 1."> above the figures mean? I know that it links to the picture, but it rather looks like a wrong tag or something |
**What does 1."> above the figures mean? I know that it links to the picture, but it rather looks like a wrong tag or something |
||
| − | ***It appears as soon as you use the Cross-Reference module inside a |
+ | ***It appears as soon as you use the Cross-Reference module inside a 'caption' environment. I didn't find a fix for this yet. (I could of course just hardcode the numbering ;)) -jonas |
| + | ***Just realising, that this makes the figures not being clickable anymore. I will hardcode it -jonas |
||
I really like your modelling approach that is based on the different alignments. The whole process of choosing different targets and change things looks very well elaborate. |
I really like your modelling approach that is based on the different alignments. The whole process of choosing different targets and change things looks very well elaborate. |
||
--[[User:Rackersederj|Rackersederj]] 14:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
--[[User:Rackersederj|Rackersederj]] 14:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | As I already said in the practical, your page is well structured and it was a nice read. Just one suggestion: I think a bigger margin below and above the "alignment figures", e.g. figure 8 and 11, would help to separate it better from the text. I read the text until I noticed that it is a figure caption and not part of the text itself. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Also, in two places, you refer the wrong table or figure: |
||
| + | * "The TM and GDT scores computed with the experimental structure contradict the ranking of the iTasser evaluation, see Table 12." → Table 13 |
||
| + | * "The important residues are all conform and the active site is satisfactory approximated, see Figure 28." → Figure 26 |
||
| + | |||
| + | And the typos I came across: |
||
| + | * "located at the and of the first" and → end |
||
| + | * "RMSD is definitely affected to much by the loops" to → too |
||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Staniewski|Staniewski]] 09:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 10:52, 5 June 2012
Unfortunately we are not ready yet :)
- We are by now, sorry it took so long
So, just a formal note for the moment. Someone taught me that captions go below figures, but for tables, it has to be above. I do not have a good reference for that, the best one I could find is this in Section Labelling. Staniewski 14:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Iv'e never seen it anywhere ... I prefer the LaTeX style but I'll look around for more information on that
- Thinking about it, you might be right. The Latex package booktabs which is meant for more professional looking tables also puts them on top -jonas
Take your time... ;)
Just some notes for now:
- As usual there are only very tiny things to "criticise"
- What does 1."> above the figures mean? I know that it links to the picture, but it rather looks like a wrong tag or something
- It appears as soon as you use the Cross-Reference module inside a 'caption' environment. I didn't find a fix for this yet. (I could of course just hardcode the numbering ;)) -jonas
- Just realising, that this makes the figures not being clickable anymore. I will hardcode it -jonas
- What does 1."> above the figures mean? I know that it links to the picture, but it rather looks like a wrong tag or something
I really like your modelling approach that is based on the different alignments. The whole process of choosing different targets and change things looks very well elaborate. --Rackersederj 14:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
As I already said in the practical, your page is well structured and it was a nice read. Just one suggestion: I think a bigger margin below and above the "alignment figures", e.g. figure 8 and 11, would help to separate it better from the text. I read the text until I noticed that it is a figure caption and not part of the text itself.
Also, in two places, you refer the wrong table or figure:
- "The TM and GDT scores computed with the experimental structure contradict the ranking of the iTasser evaluation, see Table 12." → Table 13
- "The important residues are all conform and the active site is satisfactory approximated, see Figure 28." → Figure 26
And the typos I came across:
- "located at the and of the first" and → end
- "RMSD is definitely affected to much by the loops" to → too
Staniewski 09:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
