Discussion Drafting
The replicate figure was an interesting blend of similarity and differences. It appeared that while specificity was important, the careful construction and preservation of the experiment, and experimental area, was far more important.
The most detailed section of the methods was creation of the overall figure, and very specific elements of certain panels. The figure was recreated in a similar manner with three minor differences, however, the differences were largely caused by an error in documentation rather than the interpretation of the reader. While the lettering boxes were smaller, with smaller lettering, the size of the lettering was incorrectly specified at 25% of the original value. The boxes are much smaller, however, it is likely that either one box was used and quartered, which would be consistent with the letter size change and still look pleasing aesthetically, or that a different unit was used.
The most notable change in the recreation is the health of the plant, and the background of the experimental area. The weed was located in the center of a loosely coiled garden hose. The hose was likely dragged to whatever location it was used in, and was likely pulled over the weed. This destroyed the integrity of the weed changing elements such as the neighboring uninfected leaves, the color of the weed as it lay dying, and total viewing area of the weed which originally obscured the environment behind it. As the photographs are the main component of the figure, the destruction of the experimental area caused differences over a much larger area of the total figure.
Most other differences were likely caused by issues with specificity and clarity of the directions. In panel A the parts of the hand that were specified were close to the positions in the original photo. The ring and pinky finger were not specified, and were not close to the original position in the photo, as well as how much of the hand was present and what angle it was at. In panel C the frame of the photo has shifted slightly, which was likely due not specifying only the edge of the reference card was visible. This shifted the photo to allow the full view of the card. The hand is also under the card as opposed to gripping the edge. This is caused by an unforeseen interpretation of how to keep the hand out of the photo.
The large contributing factor was likely due to the difference in equipment available. I had not given much thought to the equipment used to take the photo, or the objects used in the photos. Some compositional errors may have occurred due to the differences in the camera’s used. If the photos were not taken or imported with the same dimensions and resolution, then compression, stretching, or other quality issues may have occurred. This is most notable with panel D, as the map used had to be stretched in the original, but appears to have been fine for use in the replicate.
Recent comments