---
title: Ariana ESHE poster feedback
tags: poster,feedback,mentoring
---

## Aesthetic

- If MPG: use just head or whole MPI one. Why not other logos (e.g. FSU?) otherwise just stick to Tübingen, can use space for QR code of the whole poster

- Make sure font size is equal throughout (Stick to three sizes, if possible - references/acknolwedgments excluded). Aims is bigger that th erest
- Stick to one font! (jut arial) -> methods seems to be a mix?

- Over-use of bolding causes you to zone out of it. Stick to itjust for headers (e.g. how you did in intro, that was very nice to emphasise the main points)
- e.g. for Results only bold 'show peservation of endogenous aDNA', the damage patterns/fragment lengths only matter to Palaeogenietics

- Grey boxes, make sure angle of rounded-corners same amount in every box (e..g morph/genetics is much more rounded)

- Align middle of 'what does 300k year old horse' look like

## Structure

- Flow through the poster isn't ...flowy... I'm expecting:
- Intro > Aim > Methods > Results > Conclustions
- Currently Aim and Methods flipped
- Make sure Left > Right flow
- e.g. A big jarring you start with the CT of SEN006

## Text

- Missing openmoji credit + license
- Introduction:
- Include site in title of first box
- MIS9 doesn't mean much to many, stick to years
- Last box to read should be the organic preservation (as that would lead to aim: good preservation, enough for aDNA despite age?).
- So Site Intro > Zooarch > Preservation
- Methods:
- Bone powder amount/bead extraction/HiSeq/10million (or 75 t least cycles) details not necessary
- Can collapse shotgun sequencing/data (in fact, replace HiSeq400 with just Illumina + 10 million reads)
- EAGER one or two?
- Aim:
- gramatticaly currently written not as an aim, 'has been carried out' - you've already done it!
- You need to put full version of aDNA before abbreivating

- Results
- See above about bolding
- "What does 300k year old horse DNA look like?" I don't fully understand what that title means - to link with previous box above maybe just say 'Example'
- Damage, missing metric (%?)

- Comparison box, maybe somehow include a tick/cross system? This would emphasise you're getting concordence

- Conclusions
- Should be rephrased to make it clearer the importance, it's a bit 'generic' at the moment -> The last point is fine, but empahsise open-air sites(!) rathher than further analysis. Is 'potentiates' a word?
- Some people might not know/care about Schöningen, don't assume everyone is excited as balls about as Conard is (for example)

- Affiliations:
- Try to reduce to two lines by e.g. converting Department to Dept. and Universtiy to Uni, removing post-codes (City/Country should be enough)
- References: Don't both with paper titles, just author/year/book or journal (+numbers if necessary)