You are here

Week 6- PP

Submitted by aswan on Wed, 10/24/2018 - 16:29

There were approximately thirteen observational  differences between Figure 1 and Figure 2. Beginning with the photos, in Figure 1 the top left image, or image A was taken from a straightforward shot that includes the bottom landing where the spider web was located. The original photo also includes an arrow pointing at the web. In the recreation (Figure 2) the photograph seems to be sideways, with an arrow pointing to the left side of the staircase at a location that is not where the spider web is located. The two images of the respective figures also differ in their labelling with the original photograph containing a label A that is contained in a box with black borders that appears proportional in size to the picture and does not appear stretched. In the recreation the label does not contain a black border and the letter appears to be larger than the original and stretched more horizontally.

When comparing the bottom left images of the figures, images B, differences are present. One difference is that the Figure 1 image B does not contain a URL and contains a marker on the portion of Morrill 4 where the photos were taken. In the Figure 2 image B the screenshot contains the URL of the website used to create the map and the marker appears to be placed on top of North Pleasant street. The two photos are also different due to their respective labels, with the orignal having a box that has a black outline, while the recreation has a label that has no border and that has a letter that is stretched horizontally. The images on the right side of the different figures are also different in several ways. The original figure, Figure 1, contains on its right side a image of a spider web at the base of the stairs in respect to the location described in the methods section. The photograph in Figure 1 also contains a ten dollar bill for the purpose of providing a real life scale for an observer. In Figure 2 image B, the recreation of the original figure seems to be picture of a different spider web near the location described in the methods and contains no ten dollar bill for scale. This image also appears to have a much shorter height than the image that can be found in the original figure.

Organizationally, the two figures diverge due to the height difference of the image on the right side of the figure in the recreation and the photo on the right side (Figure 1, image C) in the original figure (Figure 1). The photo in the recreation figure (Figure 2) does not extend down to the bottom edge of the images on the left side, creating a large, box-sized gap in the figure that is not present in the original figure. This creates a stark contrast, with Figure 1 being held to the shape of a structured box and the recreation maintaining an uppercase L shape.  

 

Post:

Comments

These paragraphs have good structure in general but when referring to specific images in the figures I think you use a little too many words and it can get kinda confusing. For exxample, in the second sentence, instead of saying "Beginning with the photos, in Figure 1 the top left image, or image A was", you could say, "Beginning with the photos, image A of Figure 1 was". This would make it a bit more straightforward. 

This is very well written portion of your methods paper. The only suggestion I have is to introcduce your figres before refering to them.


In the results section be careful for observations vs. inference. I think this "seems to be a picture of a different spider web" is more an inference than an observation. Instead I'd point out how you know it is a different web by pointing out differences in shape, size, background ect.