You are here

Discussion

Submitted by cslavin on Thu, 02/28/2019 - 12:09

Factors that may have impacted the results of the different layouts in the Figure 1, the original, and Figure 2, the replicate, were the size of the screenshots taken and a different pixel count. The size of the screenshot taken could have been larger in the replicate causing a white border and space above the textboxes. Doubling the pixel count in the replicate could have been the reason the replicate is larger than the original. Factos that may have resulted in the differences in between the photographs in Figure 1 and Figure 2 were the weather, the distance from the tree, and the camera angle. The original photographs were taken on a muggy day with no snow on the ground, while the replicate photographs were taken on a day with snow on the ground. the tree in the replicate photographs "a" and "b" appeared smaller and showed more background, which could have been because the camera angleand a greater distance stood away from the tree. There were greater amounts of moss in photograph "c" of the replicate, but they appeared smaller in size which could be due to a greater distance stood away from the treen while the photograps were being taken. 

Post:

Comments

There are a few errors within the paper. In the fourth sentense the first word is spelt wrong and you do not need "in" before between. Also the sixth sentense does not start with a capital. There is just small stuff that could be cleaned up!

According to comments left from Professor Brewer on my Methods project, scare quotations (like "a") are unneccesary. Also, when referencing photographs a and b, they should be referred to as panels, rather than photographs since they constitute a scientific figure.

couple minor mistakes already listed above^. Instead of switching between 'photographs' and 'figures' I would stick to one so that it is consistent in the paper. You could probably replace 'photographs' with image or panel.