Talk:CH391L/S14/Alex's First assignment

From SynBioCyc
Jump to: navigation, search

Worksheet: This should take you about 20 to 30 minutes to complete, including reading the wiki. Use whatever space you need. [ask for the word file, if you do not have it]

Overall Format and structure: There are a few typos (such as a missing quote in the first mention of BioBricks), but they are easily fixable and not too distracting. The use of first person and references to the editor as an individual are a little unprofessional, and should be fixed. The structure overall is a bit scattered and not very unified, for example with regards to the PoPS section, which seems very oddly placed with little transition or reference to it.

Introduction and background material: The introduction is mostly well-written, and the description of how the BioBricks are used and combined is very clear and useful. The history section is a bit short, but that's understandable given that the topic's relatively recent. However, perhaps some reference to when genetic engineering and synthetic biology began and what it was like before might help.

Methods and main body/concepts: The description of how to use the registry is pretty straightforward and concise, which is good, and the links to the registry site are useful. Again, the use of first person and personal anecdotes should be changed to something more professional. The PoPS and Addgene sections, while relevant and useful, are not very well incorporated into the page as a whole. Some amount of transition or specific reference to how they connect to the main topic may help make them more accessible.

Relation to iGEM and future directions: The future directions are well explained, but the section as a whole seems a bit incomplete. However, this may just be because there was not much specific in plan for the registry other than what was talked about, so it is acceptable.

Figures, Figure legends, and citations: The first image used of a screw, while a useful example, does not really serve to improve the page. The example alone is sufficient for making the point that the biological parts have to be standardized, so the figure itself is not very useful. One of the images not cited (the third image on the page) may need to be; I'm not sure where it came from. The last citation is mislabeled as 11 rather than 10, and there is no summary or mention of why the citations were used in the reference section.