Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homology modelling TSD"

From Bioinformatikpedia
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 4 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)
  +
* 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>
Take you time... ;)
+
Take your time... ;)
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
Just some notes for now:
 
Just some notes for now:
 
*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 '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

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)