Difference between revisions of "Talk:Predicting the Effect of SNPs (PKU)"

From Bioinformatikpedia
(suggestions)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
==criticism==
 
==criticism==
 
<!-- don't spare our feelings! -->
 
<!-- don't spare our feelings! -->
  +
  +
  +
Pymol pics with white backround rather than black.
  +
** Totally highjacking this and suggesting transparency 'set ray_opaque_background, off' -jonas
   
 
==positive feedback==
 
==positive feedback==
 
<!-- tell us what you like here -->
 
<!-- tell us what you like here -->
  +
  +
  +
Nice work!
  +
Very structured and creative!
  +
Nice approval/rejection signs ;)
   
 
==suggestions==
 
==suggestions==
 
<!-- when you think there is something you should write, here is the place and time -->
 
<!-- when you think there is something you should write, here is the place and time -->
  +
  +
When discussion the mutations in general, you could have (shortly) repeated whether it actually is disease-causing or not, even though the inclined reader could have tried to memorise that the predctions are wrong in only one case ;-). (I didn't and therefore) It is a bit tedious to scroll up to the overview table to back-check it. But this is just a minor suggestion, really.
  +
 
== Typos/spelling ==
 
== Typos/spelling ==
   

Latest revision as of 09:23, 19 June 2012

This is just a place to add criticism and or positive feedback so we Jonathan and Sebastian have a possibility to improve. Please note, that we wont be able to adress all matters immediately but we will address them eventually!

schematic group of people coloured in several colours with speech bubbles above their head
source: [1]

criticism

Pymol pics with white backround rather than black.

    • Totally highjacking this and suggesting transparency 'set ray_opaque_background, off' -jonas

positive feedback

Nice work! Very structured and creative! Nice approval/rejection signs ;)

suggestions

When discussion the mutations in general, you could have (shortly) repeated whether it actually is disease-causing or not, even though the inclined reader could have tried to memorise that the predctions are wrong in only one case ;-). (I didn't and therefore) It is a bit tedious to scroll up to the overview table to back-check it. But this is just a minor suggestion, really.

Typos/spelling

references

<references/>