You are here

Results Methods

Submitted by rmmcdonald on Fri, 10/11/2019 - 10:33

Overall, each of the figures followed the same formatting style, with one large photo on the left and two smaller photos on top of each other to the right. However besides that similarity, most of the other characteristics of the complete figures are contrasting. The overall resolution and lighting of each of the photos were significantly different. The resolution of Figure 1 seemed blurrier and the lighting appeared overexposed compared to the sharp resolution of Figure 2. Figure 1 contained even, white spacing between each of the panels while Figure 2 had a more significant gap between panel B and C. This links to the sizing of B and C, where the panels in Figure 1 were horizontal in contrast to Figure 2 where the panels were vertical. The letters that marked each panel in Figure 1 were black letters with no background. In comparison, the letters that marked each panel in Figure 2 were black letters with a white square background and a black border. The overall ordering of the panels were switched, therefore A from Figure 1 matches with B from Figure 2.



Some of the ideas don't follow each other. For example, there is a sentence referring to the panels and their orientation that could be followed by the last sentence about the location of the panels but isn't. They are instead separated by a few sentences referring to the labels. Joining these together might help with flow.

The first sentence describes a similarity whereas I think the goal of the methods was to talk about only differences in an organized manner

Comma after "However..."