Skip to content

Add further reading section #348

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Add further reading section #348

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

@marcodallavecchia
Copy link
Contributor

@marcodallavecchia marcodallavecchia commented Aug 25, 2025

This draft PR partially addresses #347, #303 and #144.

Please briefly summarise the changes made in the pull request, and the reason(s) for making these changes.

This PR creates a new further-reading.md page under the More dropdown menu and adds a reference to the resource page at the end of the capstone challenge to create a where to go next? section.

I tested it locally by recompiling the material with sandpaper, I hope it will work for the final version well.

As of now I would consider this a draft because:

  • We might want to review/update the list of resources mentioned
  • We might want to have a standardized way of referencing things. I don't believe we make extensive use of references/citations of outside sources as of now, but we might want to create a bibliography file? Although I couldn't find relevant documentation on the workbench or sandpaper docs
  • We might want to group the resources in a different way (I proposed courses, help and literature for now)
  • Should we reference this section somewhere else other than the end of the capstone challenge?

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Thank you!

Thank you for your pull request 😃

🤖 This automated message can help you check the rendered files in your submission for clarity. If you have any questions, please feel free to open an issue in {sandpaper}.

If you have files that automatically render output (e.g. R Markdown), then you should check for the following:

  • 🎯 correct output
  • 🖼️ correct figures
  • ❓ new warnings
  • ‼️ new errors

Rendered Changes

🔍 Inspect the changes: https://github.com/datacarpentry/image-processing/compare/md-outputs..md-outputs-PR-348

The following changes were observed in the rendered markdown documents:

 09-challenges.md         |  9 +++++++++
 further-reading.md (new) | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 md5sum.txt               |  3 ++-
 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
What does this mean?

If you have source files that require output and figures to be generated (e.g. R Markdown), then it is important to make sure the generated figures and output are reproducible.

This output provides a way for you to inspect the output in a diff-friendly manner so that it's easy to see the changes that occur due to new software versions or randomisation.

⏱️ Updated at 2025-08-25 05:03:46 +0000

github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 25, 2025
@actions-user
differences for PR #348
a1a853f
@marcodallavecchia marcodallavecchia marked this pull request as draft August 25, 2025 12:04
K-Meech
K-Meech reviewed Nov 1, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@K-Meech K-Meech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for putting this draft PR together @marcodallavecchia - and sorry for the long delay in reviewing 😅

I built this locally + all looked great - linking to this page from the end of the capstone challenge works well. My one concern is that some of the resources in the 'where to go from here' section are quite old now e.g. the EMBL courses which haven't been updated in ~7 years. It's probably worth us going through this list and putting the most up-to-date materials at the top (e.g. I'd vote for Pete Bankhead's book going first - as it is a great resource!)

Maybe we can go through these in our next maintainer meeting, and decide on an order / whether to remove some of the older links?

@marcodallavecchia
Copy link
Contributor Author

marcodallavecchia commented Nov 3, 2025

Thanks for the quick review @K-Meech, and no worries for the delay!

I completely agree that the resources are quite old. I tried to already go over them to at least see if they are somewhat relevant (I seem to remember of them were broken links even), but I also didn't want to add too many resources that would be too focused on bioimage analysis.

100% agree to discuss these points on the next meeting!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@K-Meech K-Meech K-Meech left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@marcodallavecchia @K-Meech