Update the title of section to reflect powerful strategy for what per reviewer comment
There was an earlier version of this section that I wrote when I thought we were writing for a biological audience, but I think that got edited in Google Docs? We should see if we can find it and "roll this back" as a starting point.
I re-read this section and I do think it is mostly in good shape with respect to the second point. It has the benefit of being near the end of the paper, so any techniques/approaches should already be defined. I'm also the one that wrote it and I might have more trouble killing these particular darlings.
The title is what I am changing here.
Directions for reviewers
Do you agree? Is this mostly in good shape for a biological audience? (We talk more about PCA earlier with the changes in #202.)
Is the pull request ready for review?
Yep, we can probably merge it into the branch for #202 without much increase in review burden on that PR unless we make changes other than the title.
Manuscript checklist
Unless otherwise noted above, this PR will be considered ready for review when all four items have been checked.
⚠️ stacked on #202
Purpose
Closes #177 (for now)!
Here's what I wrote in July:
I re-read this section and I do think it is mostly in good shape with respect to the second point. It has the benefit of being near the end of the paper, so any techniques/approaches should already be defined. I'm also the one that wrote it and I might have more trouble killing these particular darlings.
The title is what I am changing here.
Directions for reviewers
Do you agree? Is this mostly in good shape for a biological audience? (We talk more about PCA earlier with the changes in #202.)
Is the pull request ready for review?
Yep, we can probably merge it into the branch for #202 without much increase in review burden on that PR unless we make changes other than the title.
Manuscript checklist
Unless otherwise noted above, this PR will be considered ready for review when all four items have been checked.