{{ANAT2341Project2017discussion}}



== Group talk ==

=== To do ===

* An introduction of what the page will go through
* Make sure all the required subjects are in the project [[ANAT2341 Lab 1]]
* Glossary list
* Maybe add videos

=== Work sites ===

z5177670: Lens, Ciliary Body, Iris, Cornea (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877117315000642, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1298807/pdf/taos00013-0203.pdf)

z5075778: Extraocular muscles and Retina

z5117343: Congenital Anomalies, Treatment, Diagnosis

z5075309: Cornea, Aqueous Chambers, Choroid and Sclera, Lacrimal Glands (<ref><pubmed>23528534</pubmed></ref >)

=== Timeline ===

I tried making a timeline of how I understand the events in eye development. Please add components or change in the timeline if you disagree - it's just a draft :-)

=== Eyes development===

'''Articles for general eye development'''

I found a few articles about the general eye development and thought I wanted to share them with you all. If we find some good references, please share it here on the page, so we can help each other :-)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10024/ - Development of the Vertebrate Eye

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3504437/ - Eye Development and Retinogenesis

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014483575900755?via%3Dihub - The prenatal development of the human eye

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10627820 - Lens development.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160606014898?via%3Dihub - FGF-mediated induction of ciliary body tissue in the chick eye

http://dev.biologists.org/content/141/23/4432.long - The cellular and molecular mechanisms of vertebrate lens development

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014483510000448 - On the growth and internal structure of the human lens

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877117315000642 - Chapter Four - Corneal Development: Different Cells from a Common Progenitor

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.17.1.255?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed (Need permission for this article)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.35713/full

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/what-is-coloboma

http://jmg.bmj.com/content/jmedgenet/41/12/881.full.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126628/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5581554/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11826019/

==Suggested Starting Places==
[[User:Z8600021|Mark Hill]] ([[User talk:Z8600021|talk]]) 10:15, 14 August 2017 (AEST) OK Group 4 below are some starting places.

{{Vision Links}}

PubMed Searches: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Eye+Development ''Eye Development''] | [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Vision+Development ''Vision Development'']

BMC Dev Biol Search: [http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdevbiol/search/results?terms=Eye+Development ''Eye Development'']

Recent papers

<pubmed limit=5>Eye+Development</pubmed>

<references/>
=Peer Review=

This is a well structured page, that approaches the eye from the basics. I like that the anatomy and underlying physiology of the eye is established before the developmental processes. Overview is brief and to the point, and the Embryonic Contributions table is an important aspect. Iris development could be expanded on, and more journal article images could be included, to show a wider range of sources were used. The "Opac figure" file does not have the correct Copyright notice. Images and tables could include a small description directly under (or above) for ease of reading. The student drawn images are well included, but are slightly hard to follow due to their small size and lack of differentiating colour and/or patterning, these images also lack the appropriates Student Image template.
Subheadings would be more noticeable if they were bigger and not just in bold. An 'animal models in comparison with human development' and 'signalling ' sections would be helpful. There are a range of spelling errors throughout the text, including the "Congenital Abnormalities" title. The page could be improved with an introduction as a lead-in to what the project with discuss, and a historical discoveries section to understand the studies that lead to our current understanding. However, on the whole this is a very good page!

---
Overall a great start on the wiki, the information is well presented however it still needs a bit more work before the due date. The Anatomy section is particularly good and the breakdown of the anatomy of the different sections of the eye, helps with interpretation and is really helpful. The use of images is really good, providing a visual reference point and further enhancing the information provided. It would be good to have a brief introduction on the page before the development and consequent information is written. Expand and complete the information of the development of the different parts of the eye, however the information currently there is very well written and understandable. Elaborate on the abnormalities and maybe you could include the pictures in the table, or expand on them outside of the table and have the pictures on the side. Complete the sections of the Carnegie table. Overall, it is a great start.

----
The team should provide a brief description of what the images are on their page so readers will understand immediately what it is. The team could use some images to show Caregie Stages, but the section is yet to be completed. An explanation of the ‘Timeline of embryonic development’ table would be beneficial to help readers understand what the table is explaining. More resources could be used for the Anatomy of the Adult Eye so that the team has shown to have used a variety of sources and have done plenty of research. There are incomplete sections. The team could include current research and animal models as extra subheadings.

Subheadings and content that have been used show a good understanding of the topic area. The team has used their own images to display their learning. The references have been correctly cited. The use of tables helps readers understand what the content is about, and is easy to follow for readers. Some of the images have been cited correctly; they have references, copyright statements and the Student Image template. However, some of the images don’t have the Student Image template. The abnormalities subheading was done well with the use of images and references.

---

'''Peer review project 4:'''
* The project does not feel like it is finished. A lot of work still needs to be done, and some of the subheadings like retina, cornea, eyelids, lacrimal glands etc is still empty.
* I did not find any sections describing signalling, research or future questions and animal models. I miss some more research content and a research angle to the project.
* The few parts of the development of the eye components which has been written was good. It was easy to understand and had good referencing.
* In general, the project could use more pictures to support the text.
* The anatomy part of the project was good. The drawing made it easier to understand, even though the picture captions and numbers are missing. I did not have any difficulties understanding it and they wrote it in a very clear way.
* I liked the overview of the eye development, it made it clear what is happening when, which cells comes from which germ layer and the Carnegie stage is a nice adding, even though it is not finished.
* The abnormal development section is far from finished. I think it is an important part of the project and it would improve the project if the anomalies where describe more in depth and not in a table.
* The glossary section was empty as well.

---

Overall the project page looks good. I like that you have used a mix of student drawn diagrams and also paper derived ones. However, I do think that the ‘anterior eye’ drawing could be a little clearer, as it is a hard to tell what label corresponds to what. Also, the referencing for these I presume the original diagrams are from an anatomy book or something, this should be cited as a ‘based on…’
Stage 21 and 22 are missing and should be filled in with the accompanying information.
Having a number of tables really helps convey some of the information in a succinct manner, I particularly like this approach in the congenital abnormalities section.
In the ‘development of the eye components’ section some visual aids would be helpful otherwise there is just going to be a lot of text, and in order to keep the reader engaged, pictures or even animations would really help.
Could have a wider list of references, but I imagine as information is added so will these be.
Well done!

---

Has good structure, and overall a good feel in the developmental process of the eye. However the page seems to be unfinished, since there are a lot of blank areas under the subheadings (Retina, Cornea, Aqueous Chambers, Choroid and Sclera, Eyelids, Lacrimal Glands) and tables. Use of tables (i.e Carnegie stages) were very helpful and makes the content easier to understand. Hand drawn images were also very well done and aids in understanding the content, however they need to be labelled with "taken from ...". Congenital anomalies section lacks information, perhaps each anomaly deserves its own subheading since it is a quite important part of the topic. Although references were done correctly, a lot of parts seem to be missing citations ("Supporting Structures" and "Anterior Structure" under Anatomy). Overall, well done so far!

---

The developmental timetable and “Development of the eye components” have very clear information that explains the embryology of eye development. However, these sections are currently unfinished and could benefit from some supporting images. Either information could be filled in for Stages 21 and 22, or the 2 rows should be deleted. The event description of Stage 23 “The face is beginning to look human,” is a slightly odd and subjective statement for the table.

The “Anatomy of the Adult Eye” has great drawn pictures to go along with the descriptions. A picture of the supporting structures of the eye would also be beneficial but is not necessary. These pictures need summaries when clicking on them and the files should be renamed from the series of numbers they are currently labeled as.
The “Embryonic Contributions” table is a good, quick, clear way to summarize eye development. You may want to move this section before the developmental timetable along with the “Short overview” description. Both the “Short overview” and “Anatomy of the Adult Eye” sections could be broken up from the long paragraph format to some bulleted information with shorter paragraphs to make the information easier to read and understand. In “Extraocular muscles,” it is mentioned that the inferior oblique muscle has a distinct embryonic origin but that origin is not mentioned.

The table for “Congenital Abnormalities” is a solid way to present the information. The descriptions and epidemiology are short and clear. This section would benefit from another column describing the embryonic origin of these issues and maybe 2 or more abnormalities added to the table.

There are several headings that are either blank or unfinished and some basic grammatical and spelling errors throughout the project. Some picture files should be renamed and a quick summary should be added. A couple more pictures could be added to support the information. A description of the studies that led to the discovery of the information on this page could also be added to improve the project.

---

The page has an unfinished feel to it due to the lack of introduction, empty subheadings towards the end of the page and "this section is not done yet" written. Abnormalities is spelt incorrectly. Clever use of self drawn diagrams to avoid copyright issues, however I think it's better to use actual images from journals because some images are hard to understand, hard to read and don't look accurate- i was unaware the sclera, choroid and retina took up so much space in the vitreous humour. Id also advise to add images to show the developments of the embryonic eye, making it more appealing for the reader. Also adding images to the "Development of the eye components" section.

---

Firstly those pointers under the heading Eye Development need to be deleted; I think they're just suggestions from Mark but if not you already have the subheadings at the top? An introduction to the human eye might ease into the topic a little better. You have done the anatomy of the adult eye really really well. The images you've drawn yourself to outline the structure is really good and there is an abundance of information, so I think this part is great! The timelines need to be completed, as you've stated otherwise they would be good timelines to follow as a basic structure for someone learning about fetal eye development. The information in the short overview is really good, however overview of what exactly? Make the heading more specific. The development of the eye components is really good however isn't complete. This section could, however, be improved by adding some images in to show the region of the eye you're talking about. The abnormalities section is good, however, I think you could refer to the figure instead of just having them below and a little more information on the description or consequences of the diseases would add more substance. The glossary also needs to be completed. Your referencing seems to be correct throughout. Overall good work the page just needs a few changes and more information!

---

Reading through this page was very interesting and informative however I have a few points that could be adjusted to improve on your page. When inserting an image, adding a figure and brief description on the images would be useful. The timeline is good but there is no reference so it definitely needs one. When reading through all the other tables, references need to be used more as it isn't that easy to figure out what articles you have used to get your information. More work needs to be done to fill the headings under development of eye components and if more images were added it would be useful. Abnormalities could have a bit more of an explanation written as well. Your wiki page is looking good, I would suggest a heading on animal models would provide some good information and fit well with your page! I also haven’t read anything that tells us about signaling, this should have its own heading and should be explained quite well as it is an important part of development. With your figures, it would be nice if you referred to them throughout your text more, and integrated them with the headings. Although this page is a work in progress, the information written is useful and easy to understand.

---

This page jumps straight into the “anatomy of the adult eye”. However, I would suggest a brief introduction (just a paragraph) on the eye, its development, its function and what this page will explore. I think the text under the subheading “anatomy of the adult eye” could be cut down or at least altered. For example, you would be good to bold some words so that they stand out – especially if they are mentioned in the diagrams. The timeline is a very brief overview of development which is probably good considered you have a more detailed table for the Carnegie stages. I would suggest that you add another column for images for the Carnegies stages once you’ve completed it.
I think it’s good that you went into the specific development of the eye components but I think it would be more interesting if you added an image or diagram for each component. Also, you still need to complete the majority of the components in this section and when you do I would suggest you keep it at one to two paragraphs. The subheading, “Congenital anomalies”, is nice and succinct with the main anomalies outlined and images to visually represent each. However, I think here there is a bit of underrepresentation of the abnormalities. I feel like you could go into some more detail about each abnormality as other groups have done. The references could be extended to about 25 once you’ve filled in the empty parts.
You might also want to add a “current research” subheading as it is relevant and shows how our understanding and knowledge of the eye’s development is always expanding.

---

Overall the page looks neat in the arrangement of the information. Before the anatomy of the eye, maybe a short paragraph on the general information of the eye could be included to have a good introduction to the project page. For the anatomy of the eye, there is a fair amount of information and good images to support the information. If the group wants to take this section a little further, they could include histological images. For the images that were drawn, perhaps a brief description could be included. For the overview of the eye development, I really like how there was a general table foe the different weeks of development and then another following table with the carniage stages. This helped the reader to have a broad overview before narrowing down to the specifics. However, I think images re needed to understand the stages better because its hard to picture the development without any pictorial aid. Also, I think the headings and subheadings for this part may need to be modified. Maybe you can start off with “Development of the Eye”. and instead of “short overview”, you can change it to “An overview of Eye Development”. Also, all the information was taken from only one source so maybe more articles could be sourced in order to have more credibility.

For the development of the eye components, the content is sufficient and concise but more images are necessary as some parts gets a little confusing. There is a good amount of references for this section. For the congenital abnormalities, the table is a good way to present the information. However, more information about the abnormalities is needed under the description column. As for the images, I think maybe you could create another column and add the image to that row for each abnormality. This would give the table a more complete look and the section will be really good. There is also good amount of references and the images are correctly referenced and the copyright statements are included so that’s well done.

---

Overall, this wikipage is pretty incomplete. However, that has been mentioned several times by the team, so i'm sure they will add on more after the peer review. The page is very neat and the text was quite concise. An introduction could be helpful to introduce what is an eye and what it does in the human body. In the anatomy of the adult eye, it was good that there were images of drawings to show the different parts of the eye, perhaps the drawings could be more clearly labelled with a thinner pen/pencil. Also a description of the image would be good as well. This section was well referenced. For the overview of eye develoment, I like the use of tables as it made it very easy to understand the content. The image (Figure 1.) was also well described and had appropriate copyright information. For the headings of this section, some could be changed such as 1.2 Eye Development, 1.2.1 Timeline of Eye Embryology, 1.2.4 Brief Outline/Description of the Eye Development. The portion on development of the eye components is incomplete, however for the parts that were there, there was not too much text and appropriate referencing. Pictures could be used in this section to improve it. For the congenital anomalies, I like the use of the table for ease of reading and understanding. Perhaps a more detailed description could be included. Also maybe the images could be added into the table as another column to make it neater. Good job so far, I think with some alterations and once they add the rest of the page, it would be a good wikipage! :)

---

The structure and layout of this page is clear and concise. At first glance it does seem quite brief, however it is understandable that the project is still under completion. An introduction section with an overall introduction of eye development would improve the flow of the project. The use of tables and diagrams make the page attractive and more appealing to read. I like the use of hand drawn diagrams, however they still need to be labeled. Many sections such as development of the eye components have large sections of text which aren’t appealing to read and the use of youtube videos, diagrams or collapsible videos could improve this. The section ‘overview of eye development’ is very informative and gives a good summary of what will later be described in detail. Some sections also have minimal referencing and this could be worked on. I also think an overall large title of ‘The eye’ at the top of the page would be appealing. Overall, well done this page is almost complete and your information is relevant and informative.

---

Anatomy of the adult eye is the shining feature of this page because it is very detailed and is balanced by personal images (one or two web images also might be helpful). I like that the group used a lot of tables throughout the sections because it helps organize the essential information all into one--many need references however. For example, the abnormalities section (fix spelling) is done very well; the table is well organized and nicely arranged so that the images are labeled at the bottom instead of interrupting the table itself. Overall, there is a simple structure to the page that makes the page easy to read and it has a nice flow. There is missing information from stage 21-23 in the Carnegie stages table, as well as from parts of the eye components. Development of the eye components is informative but could be improved by adding visuals in each section. While there is a lot of helpful detail for overall eye anatomy, some information on signaling, current research, future questions and animal models would make it better. An introduction would also be beneficial.

---

Introduction section is missing. It is better to start off introducing what you are going to discuss about briefly. The developmental timeline is informative.
Developmental signaling pathway of the eye is missing. Would be beneficial if a brief mechanism is discussed.
In each part of the eye development, consider putting labeled pictures for readers to navigate back to see where and what they are looking at, as there are many structures written in the text. Also, start building the glossary terms as you go. Some of the subheadings under this section are not done; I assume they will be later.
With the congenital anomalies, i think it should be congenital abnormalities. Tackle some details for each of the abnormalities, mention the causes, how it happens, how common it is in Australia, briefly touch on how severe it is and how to treat them if possible, what are the underlying mechanism for this. This section needs a lot more information.
Current research and animal model subheadings are not seen, should have this in the project. It is essential to include 2-3 current research journals on the eyes.

--- 
Strengths: 
• Authors of the wiki page have covered a variety of topics regarding eye development. It was great how the authors have included a general overview of eye development followed by a description of specific components within the eye, this definitely helped add depth to your wiki page was also satisfying criteria 1 of the assessment outline. 
• The authors of the page have also included a number of images and tables to help present information in a more clear and concise manner. The use of a table to describe the stages of eye development was excellent as it helped simplify the entire process (criteria 2). 
• It was great to see hand drawn diagrams within the wiki page. These diagrams helped simplify the overall anatomy of the eye to audiences who may not have a background in science, thus it is excellent that the page focuses on teaching at the peer level (criteria 4). 
• It is also great that the authors have included a glossary to help define words which may not be familiar with all audiences. 
Areas of improvement: 
• To improve, the authors may have included a greater number of images whilst also including videos. More images may have been included under the heading “development of the eye components” to help reinforce the information already included. In addition, certain subheadings under this heading may include a greater description. For example, the subheading “Iris” may include a greater description of how the iris comes to develop. In addition, the authors of this wiki page may have also included videos as another visual tool to help explain certain processes described. 
• In addition, it appears that certain areas of the wiki page do not include references to cite certain portions of information included. For example, the section about the anatomy of the eye has utilized a small number of references. In order to completely satisfy criteria 3 of this assessment, authors may wish to correctly cite information included within this section. 
• The authors of the wiki page may wish to conduct further research into the subheading “congenital anomalies”. In doing so, a possible area that may be researched is treatment currently available to tackle these anomalies (for example different types of stem cell research being conducted” (criteria 5).

----

This peer review is based on the relevant dot points of the ‘Group Assessment Criteria’, as well as subheadings suggested by Mark. This information can be found on the student page.

{| border="1" align="left"
|-
|Criteria
|Strengths
|Weaknesses
|-
| 1. The choice of content shows a good understanding of the topic area
| The ‘anatomy of the eye’ clearly conveys background information regarding the eye, and makes a nice introduction to the wiki page.

The embryology timeline, even if not finished yet, is very detailed and informative. This gives the reader an overall understanding of the development of the eye.

The ‘abnormal development’ section, although short, conveys information very clearly and summarises abnormal conditions well.

The well-structured sub headings of the wiki page make the information easier to follow and link together.
| The wiki page is missing several important areas of information:
*There is no information about key historical discoveries regarding development of the eye.
*There is no section on animal models used to further understanding on eye development
*There is no section on current research regarding embryological development of the eye
*There is no section on developmental signalling processes of the eye
*There is no section on future questions in research relating to eye development

Several sections are largely unfinished (see ‘development of the eye components’). Subheadings have also been added, but lack associated information (see ‘glossary’).
|-
|2. Content is correctly cited and referenced
|There have been attempts at referencing throughout the assignment. A reference list has been produced and appears mostly correct.

The reference list is comprised mainly of peer-reviewed primary research articles.

Images not drawn by students have been referenced correctly (see ‘figure 1’)
|Overall, referencing throughout the wiki page is poor. Some sections have no in-text citations (see ‘anterior structure’). Other sections have minimal referencing (see ‘short overview’). Remember that any unoriginal ideas or information need to be acknowledged by in-text citations.

Try to obtain information from a variety of sources, rather than just relying on one or two for entire sections (see first paragraph of ‘short overview’).

The student-drawn images have not been referenced correctly. Remember to include the source that ‘inspired’ the drawing.

Some references have been repeated in the reference list (see references 11 and 12).
|-
|3. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level
|The information presented is mostly at a level appropriate for peers. The ‘anatomy of the eye’ section provides background information that clarifies information further down the wiki page.

The student-drawn diagrams make some difficult ideas easier to understand.

Many of the tables on the wiki page provide a clear summary of a topic (e.g. for ‘embryonic contributions’)
|Many of the acronyms and terms used in this assignment are either poorly explained, or not explained at all. Be sure to include a glossary of terms.

Most of the images lack descriptions. Try adding descriptions to make the images easier to understand. In addition, there is a lack of images throughout the page. Remember to include diagrams in other sections, such as in ‘development of the eye components’.
|-
|4. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology
|The wiki page addresses several aims of embryology in great detail, such as embryonic development of the eye (see ‘overview of eye development’), and abnormal development.
|The wiki page lacks content relevant to other aims of embryology, such as current research, key discoveries and developmental signaling processes. Be sure to add some information under these sub-headings.
|-
|5. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic
|Certain aspects have been well researched, such as development of the eye, and the anatomy of the eye.
|No links to other pages on the UNSW embryology wiki have been included. Try linking this wiki page to other aspects of the embryology wiki, such as the ‘sensory development’ page.

The reference list currently lacks a wide variety of sources. Using a larger number of reliable sources (i.e. peer reviewed research articles) will ensure that this topic has been well researched.
|}

Grade: PASS

General Comment: Although some sections of the wiki page have been addressed in great detail, the page is largely unfinished.

----
This page could benefit from an introduction explaining the page and the overall importance of the eye and its development. 'Anatomy of the Adult Eye' has drawn pictures; whilst hand drawing is a great idea I believe these diagrams are a bit hard to understand as the eye is most easily displayed as a 3D model and these diagrams are all 2D. Otherwise, good content. Maybe a structure/function/location/diagram table would be good for this section? 'Overview of eye development' has a couple of sections that still need to be completed; also maybe a bit more detail to the events taking place at each stage would be beneficial. 'Development of the eye components' has good information but I feel that with all the separate parts to be completed there is going to be a lot of text here; again a table may be more useful or the use of pictures as it is getting a bit monotonous to read. 'Congenital Anomalies' this table is very brief and doesn't do each abnormality justice. Figures are useful. This page has a fair bit of work to do; future research questions would be a good subtitle to have and glossary needs to be added to. Overall there is not much to read.
----
- An introduction to the page was absent and preferably would’ve been a good start

- Anatomy of the eye was very well structured and was elaborated under smaller separate subheadings. Drawings of the eye helped along with the content in this part and different colours also helped decipher the image. It was nice that you included what view of the eye the image was showing.

- Timeline of embryonic development is a bit brief and possibly elaborating further would have been better. Including a picture here, showing which part of the eye develops in which a progressive timeline would be good.

- Carnegie stages was incomplete, which would have been good if it was done with some pictures on the side as well. I liked the table of embryonic contributions as it really helps to simplify things

- No presence of referencing in Embryonic Contribution or Carnegie Table.

- A short overview description of the development was nice prior to elaboration of this in the next part “Development of the eye components”

- The development of eye components was not completed, but information present was good, but could use with some diagrams here to help people picture which part of eye is being explained

- Some spelling errors were seen, especially for “Congenital Anomalies”… seen throughout the page

- Nice table for congenital abnormalities, which was nicely summarised and included epidemiology. Would need to elaborate more on each congenital abnormality instead of just a table.

- Personally, think there should be more references considering the amount of information included on the page. Inclusion of glossary and more pictures/videos would have made this page better. Overall, I think this page is well structured and has made a great use of tabling.

---

The "Anatomy of the eye" was addressed very well, and the figures were very useful. However, significant aspects discussed in the Anatomy section were not present in the figures and could leave readers confused, for example, when all the muscles responsible for ocular movement were listed but not illustrated; there would be no need to list the proper names of all the muscles. Other than that the section was written well, merging description of form with explanation of function. The tables used in "Eye Development" were also gratifyingly direct, although some elaboration could improve the notes. From what is completed in the development of the "Components" the writing is engaging and the content is appropriately thorough. A diagram or figure would add to the good content. Congenital anomalies are a little brief but the images and table worked well in terms of formatting and visual appeal. Overall good job, would have appreciated a little more completion.

---

User:Z5113034

2017-10-12T01:18:21Z

Z5113034:

Talk:2017 Group Project 3

2017-10-12T01:16:32Z

Z5113034: /* Peer Review */

{{ANAT2341Project2017discussion}}



==Suggested Starting Places==
[[User:Z8600021|Mark Hill]] ([[User talk:Z8600021|talk]]) 10:15, 14 August 2017 (AEST) OK Group 3 below are some starting places.

{{Heart Links}}

PubMed Searches: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Heart+Development ''Heart Development''] | [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Cardiac+Development ''Cardiac Development'']

BMC Dev Biol Search: [http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdevbiol/search/results?terms=Heart+Development ''Heart Development'']

Recent papers

<pubmed limit=5>Heart+Development</pubmed>

==Group Topic Intro==

=Peer Review=

'''Peer review project 3:'''

Some general comments to the project:
*The project contained both developmental origin, timeline, signalling processes, current research and findings, animals model and abnormal development sections. The project therefore has all the sections which were a requirement for the project.
* Overall, I think the project was good. It was well written, easy to understand as a student, the sections correlated well and the context was good. I especially liked the signalling section, even though some context is missing. I think the idea of adding a treatment part to project is a good but I could not find it in the project. As mentioned some context is missing, which is the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog and retinoic acid sections.
* The project has a good introduction. You have a clear idea of what you are about to read, which is nice.
* The layout could be a lot better, I think the picture location could be adjusted. In the developmental origin part, the pictures make the section look very confusing. Some of the subheadings, like the abnormal development is pushed to side by the pictures, so when you scroll down the project you miss it.
* In general, the pictures miss their caption, sources and number. Therefore, you do not know which picture there is referred to when you are reading the project. I miss some more pictures in the developmental sections. Some of the home made drawing is not very descriptive
* In the developmental origin section I think the last sentence is very long. You get so much information in one sentence that you sometimes forget what you just read.
* The timeline is easy to read and understand. Could contain some key discoveries.
* Thought the glossary of terms is a nice addition to the project.
* Overall the referencing is good, but in some sections like primary heart field and heart tube formation, the referencing is missing. In some sections the articles/or links are at the bottom of the section, which makes it a little confusing.
* I don’t feel like the primary heart field and heart tube formation correlates very well with the secondary heart field and cardiac looping section. When I start reading the latter I feel like I am starting on something completely new instead of continuing reading on the heart developing. I get the feeling I am reading two different persons work, and some work should be put into these sections to make it feel more fluent.
* An idea for your project could be that you add a short anatomy section after the introduction, so the reader gets a picture and an overview of how the heart is structured. Then it is easier to understand the developing of the heart when you know how the heart is going to end up looking like.

---

Don’t forget to remove the hyperlinks that are under ‘Heart’ at the beginning of the page. Remove student numbers from the page. Add a brief description under images so that readers will understand what the image is showing. Remember to move references that are written in some sections to the ‘References’ subheading. The Notch Pathway is incomplete.

Subheadings and content that have been used show a good understanding of the topic area. The use of a table for the ‘Development Timeline’ shows the teams innovativeness. The use of simple sentences in the table allows readers to understand content simply. References have been done well, they are cited properly. The team have used their own images to show their understanding of the heart. The images that they have used have been properly cited: there are references, copyright statements and the Student Image template. Thorough description of abnormal development, animal models and current research which shows the comprehensive research that was done for the heart. The use of Glossary of Terms is helpful to readers who may not understand what some terms are.

---
Very informative and well written wiki. The glossary of terms is particularly useful and presented beautifully. The frequent addition of images and hand-made drawings are really good as they provide a useful visual reference point. The inclusion of a brief overview about the different animals studied in regards to the heart is very interesting. There is a minor spelling error in the table referring to Developmental timeline (week 5). The use of references is great, however maybe just include the links at the bottom of the wiki, to assist with the flow of information. Also add a description of your images so that viewers can more easily identify how the image relates to the text and the relevance of it. Overall, a really good wiki and well done.

----

The project is very good. There is a lot information on the page, there is a good description of each picture when you click on them, and there is a good brief introduction of each topic before going into depth on certain points. Most things are described clearly with pictures to support the information. Ending the project with a glossary of terms adds clarity to the project.

In particular, the “Developmental Signalling Processes” section is excellent. There is a description of where molecules are expressed, what cells they act on, the molecules’ roles in the cell signalling pathway on individual cells, and the molecules’ roles in overall heart development. The table describing different types of FGF signalling is excellent. In this section and throughout the project, there is a lot of description of research that has led to the discovery of the information presented on this page. The section “Animal Models” and “Current Research and Findings” add to this.

There are still a couple things to be fixed before the project is complete. There are some grammatical and spelling errors, particularly in “Proepicardium and Coronary Heart Development” that need to be edited. Some subheadings have nothing under them. Some references need to be fixed. Copyright information is needed when you click on some of the pictures. Instead of just using a paragraph style, emphasizing information by bolding specific words or using bulleted information may make the project easier to read and understand. Near the beginning of the project, a picture of the locations of the truncus arteriosus, bulbus cordis, primitive ventricle, and primitive atrium in the heart tube may add to the description of early development. In addition, a description of valve development could add to the project. Overall very good project.

---

Use of headings and subheadings break this complex developmental process in to understandable, clear sections.
The images chosen to reinforce the material are appropriate and I particularly like that time has been taken to draw a number of these.
There does seem to be an awful lot of information, and I wonder if this can be cut down at all. For example there is the section on signaling during development, which is a more complex section to understand. This is greatly helped by the diagrams but I can see that there are additional headings that are yet to have information added. It might be an idea to pick a few signaling pathways that occur and really perfect those. I think it has the potential to become very confusing to the reader otherwise.
It is very useful to the reader that you have included a glossary of terms, however I wonder if it may be more effective if this table is placed at the beginning of the page, or as a link at the top that can be opened up, so as the reader can familirise themselves with the terms prior to reading the page.
The page appears to be referenced extensively throughout and appropriately. Good job

---

Overall, this page has a good structure and was enjoyable to read. The headings and subheadings were clear and made it easier to understand the development process of the Heart. Perhaps it would be better to include relevant background information of the heart before jumping into the developmental process straightaway. There is a good amount of images (and well-drawn images) accompanying the text which aided in understanding the content, however some were not labelled with their appropriate descriptions. Most parts were cited correctly and properly, however some areas weren't cited at all such as "Current Research and Findings and "Cardiac Stem Cells". Also, some references were not done properly, check the "Primary Heart Field and Heart Tube Formation" section. Some sections were left blank, however I assume they will be completed over time. Glossary of terms was clever and made the content easier to understand (the heart is quite complicated to understand). Well done overall.

---

Overall, this page had a finished feel because the page is so heavily packed with information, there are some sections that were not completed. There is however, a lot of information that may leave the reader feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some sections are also hard to understand and comprehend especially due to the heavy use of biotechnological jargon (ie. SMAD-dependent, SMAD-independent pathways, β-catenin). A terminology/glossary section would be extremely helpful for this issue. I'd advise using more images in "Abnormal Development" (ie. x-rays or physical observations of sufferers) to help the reader visualise such abnormalities. Referencing under images should be moved to the references section and should be referenced using the '''''< ref >''' '''< / ref >''''' if in text. Overall, there is a lot of information, some of which is not necessarily important. I'd advise to cut down, make paragraphs more simple and straight to the point, and use images to help the reader visually understand and comprehend.

---

Introduction is very good and explains a lot. Under the heading “Primary heart field and heart tube formation” – the reference at the bottom should be removed.
Secondary heart field and cardiac looping: First sentence doesn’t really make sense, maybe switch it up a bit.
Under current research and findings you have labelled a figure figure 1, when it is not the first figure in your wiki page, seems a little confusing. Images also don’t have appriopriate copyright info, description and referencing. Also figure 2 is placed right in the middle of the sentence, maybe put it to the right so it doesn’t interrupt reading.
Information could be formatted better under the heading atrial septal defect! Maybe some subheadings for the different defects? Same goes with the ventricular septal defect, its easier to read when things are broken up. Glossary is very good!

All the information written on your page is very well written and easily understood.
Images could be labelled better, add a figure to each of them as when you are referring to figure 1 and 2 in your writing, the images aren’t labelled so its hard to tell what image you are referring to.
With references, I don’t like how there is a bunch at the end of some headings? Could be because you still need to read them but looks messy.
There is an overwhelming amount of information, so good job on doing so much research but it was quite tedious to read, not sure if this much information is needed? But it is very hard to fault your wiki page so this might be a bit picky.

---

The introduction is a brief and clear overview of the page. I liked how you acknowledged what your page will explore about the heart development. The “Developmental origin” subheading had good information and good diagrams in addition. However, I would adjust your layout a bit in this section so that the diagrams don’t look so awkward. You could do this by breaking down that second paragraph. The timeline provided a brief overview but I would also suggest adding another column for images. There is also a spelling error on week 5 – it says “srtats” where it should be “starts”.
As you go into “primary heart field and heart tube formation”, “secondary heart field and cardiac looping” and the next few sections, the references appear at the bottom of the sections. You should fix this so that they only appear in the reference list at the end. You could also probably bold “heart tube fusion”, “heart looping” and other terms in your developmental timeline since you explore them in depth.
The “developmental signalling process” subheading is very detailed. Since you also have a few more parts to complete into this section, it might be better to try to minimise some of the text. Your inclusion of current research is good and unique as you explore one paper in depth. However, I would suggest that you find another one or two. The “animal models” subheading should probably have a diagram or two of the referenced research papers if possible. Again with “abnormal development” subheading I would suggest some more images to see what these defects look like and possibly cutting down some text. In “future questions” you might also be able to provide a possible direction research might take to potentially answer this question. Also, you had a very good, long list of references.

---

The page goes through everything required for the project page. It would be nice if the pictures on the page have a figure number and a short title on the figures, so it is easier for the reader to understand what figure belongs to what part of the section. A figure number on the picture makes it able for the writer to refer to a specific picture. There is a good use of tables and self-drawn figures/picture. This makes the page clearer and more readable. There are some references on the page that needs a different formatting, so it is not fully viewed in the sections. It is important that the references are given right after the specific section and not at the bottom of the section.

*'''The Introduction''' section gives a good excitement for the reader before reading the page. This gives an idea of what information to expect from the page. A little section about the anatomy of the heart and a picture could give a better preparation for the reader to understand the developmental part of the heart.
*'''The Development Origin''' section has a bit confusing layout.
*I like that the '''Cardiac Neural Crest and Outflow tract''' sections have a self-drawn picture, but maybe you can draw it a bit clearer, so it is easier to read the writing and understand the figure There is no figure text on the page of the figure.
*'''Current Research And Findings, Animal Models and Abnormal Development:''' These sections have a bit of a messy layout. The context is good, but there I a lot of text and pictures kind of mingling into each other. You could make these sections more separate in the layout.
*'''The Glossary of terms''' helps the reader a lot.

---

The headings were all neat, concise and impressive. It successfully highlighted and sectioned the key topics in the development of the heart. The addition of the technical signalling pathways and the details of the development were well summarised with appropriate references in superscript format. There was a nice variety of visual resources, both hand drawn and externally sourced. Most images have their copyright approval and reference included perfectly, except "Figure 1 Morphological defects in CTCF mutant embryonic hearts" and "Figure 2 - defects of mitochondria in CTCF mutant hearts". There was a nice flow throughout the page through the use of effective paragraph sectioning. The table for the glossary of terms was really useful and neat.

Some of the images didn't have a box around it and these figures were not labelled, this should be easily changed in the edit mode. Some of the hand drawn images were somewhat unclear, due to the writing as well as the rough outline of the heart. Signatures should also be removed. The references were also retained in the bottom of the sections. It was a confusing because it wasn't next to any paragraphs that needed to be referenced. A reference was also repeated in this section.

''For example:''
"This image is based upon Robert H Anderson, Sandra Webb, Nigel A Brown, Wouter Lamers, Antoon Moorman Development of the heart: (3) formation of the ventricular outflow tracts, arterial valves, and intrapericardial arterial trunks. Heart: 2003, 89(9);1110-8 PubMed 12923046

Robert H Anderson, Sandra Webb, Nigel A Brown, Wouter Lamers, Antoon Moorman Development of the heart: (3) formation of the ventricular outflow tracts, arterial valves, and intrapericardial arterial trunks. Heart: 2003, 89(9);1110-8 PubMed 12923046

Marc Sylva, Maurice J B van den Hoff, Antoon F M Moorman Development of the human heart. Am. J. Med. Genet. A: 2014, 164A(6);1347-71 PubMed 23633400"

Finally, there is a great variety of reputable sources of information. The only thing that needs changing is that the reference list should be revised. Some were left as a link and the list were inconsistent with its reference format.

---

This wikipage had all the sections required for this assignment and the team was very detailed in their content. There was also a good amount of referencing. However for certain areas, the entire reference was there instead of just the number. Also, the student numbers should be removed from the page. There was also a good number of photos used and it was good that they had a mix between self-drawn images and images obtained online. However, a way that could improve the images would be to add a description or a caption under each figure so it's easier to know what the picture is about. Some photos in this article lacked description, reference and copyright information, so that could be added as well. For most of the article, I can see that the team carried out a great amount of research for this topic, however it was a little difficult to understand some parts as they were very lengthy and slightly too content heavy. For the developmental timeline, the use of a table was good but the information could be presented in a more concise manner and the headings could be slightly more prominent to make it more readable. The signalling processes was also very well researched but quite lengthy, perhaps a few main signalling pathways could be chosen instead. For the abnormal developments, each abnormalities were well researched on. Perhaps images could be added to show the abnormalities and also maybe one or two more defects would be good. Overall, I think this group did a great job in researching and providing information on this wikipage. Maybe with a bit of tweaking here and there to make it more concise and readable, this wikipage would make a really good project.

---

Well-structured page which seems to be quite detailed and long to read. The extensive use of subheadings make it a little harder to follow in some areas such as under “Developmental timeline”, where after the table the subheading “Primary Heart Field and…” appears to be a little misplaced or is lacking flow completely. Need to remove the student numbers from the page and also the two links under the initial “Heart” heading. In text referencing throughout the page seems to be consistent for the most part however, there are some areas where the correct format needs to be used (i.e., under “Wnt signaling” and “Cardiac Neural Crest and Outflow tract”). Some images do have a description of what is addressed however, many of them do not – this expansion would help with the overall reading experience as well as add further information for understanding. Overall, an extensive knowledge of the topic is well demonstrated through an attention to detail – but perhaps a more concise approach would add some clarity to the text.

---

The introduction was very good! I like how it introduced why the heart is so critical in early development, explained what you were going to discuss and where there would be gaps due to a lack of medical knowledge. The information in developmental origin and the developmental timeline is really great, however, I think you need to consider joining these two headings and not splitting them into one. You also state in developmental origin "as seen in figure two", however, none of your images have figure titles so I am not sure which figure you're actually referring to. The timeline is a good basic reference point, so I think it would be nice for it to be before the origin outline as it gives the basics which you then go into more detail about. I like that you put in the developmental signalling processes and then outlined each one of these, obviously the rest of those processes that have subheadings but no information just need to be finished. The current research is really interesting, again images just need a figure of some sort. The future questions section is a little confusing as I'm not sure if that's an area you're going to go into more depth over or if that's a future question you think research should look in to? So a clarification would be good. The glossary of terms is super helpful and all referencing looks good!

---

At first glance this project seems very detailed and lengthy. In my opinion, it could have too much text and maybe summarizing and condensing some sections could be beneficial. Collapsible windows or maybe more use of subheadings or dot points could be used to make the page clearer and less overwhelming. The diagrams and tables are very engaging and informative. However I do think the position and sizing of the diagrams could be improved to align it with the text better. The text and most of the diagrams seem to be well referenced. Another suggestion for this page would be to make the overall title of ‘Heart’ larger and clearer, perhaps include a diagram of the heart with the title to make it more attractive. The overall title should also be placed above the contents section.
Despite these suggestions, well done this page is very detailed and informative and you have clearly put a lot of work and effort into it.

---

Great detailing of the development and signaling processes involved, it really showed me that the group had extensive knowledge on this topic. In addition, there is a good balance of personal images (e.g. wnt signaling diagram) and web images which showed me that the group dedicated time to make sure the reader fully understood each aspect of the topic. Most images also are properly cited with copyright statements, references, and description (some are missing, but overall are done well). It was very helpful to include a glossary of terms at the end for the reader to refer to. An image for the cardiac looping steps would help to visualize steps. Information needs to be added for the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog, retinoic acid. While the detail is very informative, there is a lot of information and can be a little overwhelming. It might help to add more bullet points (with only essential information) or to edit some of the superfluous information. In addition, captions for the images would help so that the reader knows which image you’re referring to when referring to them in the text.

---
'Introduction' is clear and informative, well referenced and gives a good outline for the rest of the page. 'Developmental Origin' has a bit of a confusing set up.. pictures are seemingly scattered and need captions. The 'Morphology of the Heart tube formation' hand-drawn figure is almost an exact replica of the original.. not sure if this is allowed because they are so similar. 'Developmental Timeline' has a very brief table.. would benefit from a better description of each week of development. This section has a couple of random references that should be at the bottom. 'Developmental Signalling Processes' diagrams need captions. There is a lot of information here which is very detailed. 'Current Research and Findings' has good subheadings and picture use; pictures need to have copyright information and citations added. Very detailed with good references throughought. 'Future Questions' needs to be added to but has shown evidence of initial research into this area. 'Glossary of terms' is a very good idea that has not yet been shown in other group topics. Maybe look into researching how to link certain words in the article to redirect to the bottom of the page to the Glossary of terms for quick definitions? Some references also need to be properly cited in the 'References' section. Over all, really well researched with some sections needing a bit more work.

---

Overall a very in-depth page with most of the required subjects covered. Some general notes; the figures would have benefited from appropriate captions but were helpful nonetheless. Referencing and overall visual formatting could be improved. The page is written well and enjoyable to read.

"Primary heart field and heart tube formation" could benefit from a diagram or figure since it is a lot of text that could be hard to conceptualise. The signalling processes are explained very well and in deep detail. Just a note though; the addressing of so many different variables in the signalling is a little confusing and hard to follow. Perhaps a more condensed response might be a little more straightforward. The diagram of the signalling pathways under "Wnt Signalling" was likewise hard to follow, and no key was given. Current Research and Animal Models were covered well and the explanation for their research and the key results highlighted were fascinating. Abnormal development was likewise addressed very well and the glossary of terms was very much appreciated.

---

Talk:2017 Group Project 3

2017-10-12T01:16:11Z

Z5113034: /* Peer Review */

{{ANAT2341Project2017discussion}}



==Suggested Starting Places==
[[User:Z8600021|Mark Hill]] ([[User talk:Z8600021|talk]]) 10:15, 14 August 2017 (AEST) OK Group 3 below are some starting places.

{{Heart Links}}

PubMed Searches: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Heart+Development ''Heart Development''] | [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Cardiac+Development ''Cardiac Development'']

BMC Dev Biol Search: [http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdevbiol/search/results?terms=Heart+Development ''Heart Development'']

Recent papers

<pubmed limit=5>Heart+Development</pubmed>

==Group Topic Intro==

=Peer Review=

'''Peer review project 3:'''

Some general comments to the project:
*The project contained both developmental origin, timeline, signalling processes, current research and findings, animals model and abnormal development sections. The project therefore has all the sections which were a requirement for the project.
* Overall, I think the project was good. It was well written, easy to understand as a student, the sections correlated well and the context was good. I especially liked the signalling section, even though some context is missing. I think the idea of adding a treatment part to project is a good but I could not find it in the project. As mentioned some context is missing, which is the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog and retinoic acid sections.
* The project has a good introduction. You have a clear idea of what you are about to read, which is nice.
* The layout could be a lot better, I think the picture location could be adjusted. In the developmental origin part, the pictures make the section look very confusing. Some of the subheadings, like the abnormal development is pushed to side by the pictures, so when you scroll down the project you miss it.
* In general, the pictures miss their caption, sources and number. Therefore, you do not know which picture there is referred to when you are reading the project. I miss some more pictures in the developmental sections. Some of the home made drawing is not very descriptive
* In the developmental origin section I think the last sentence is very long. You get so much information in one sentence that you sometimes forget what you just read.
* The timeline is easy to read and understand. Could contain some key discoveries.
* Thought the glossary of terms is a nice addition to the project.
* Overall the referencing is good, but in some sections like primary heart field and heart tube formation, the referencing is missing. In some sections the articles/or links are at the bottom of the section, which makes it a little confusing.
* I don’t feel like the primary heart field and heart tube formation correlates very well with the secondary heart field and cardiac looping section. When I start reading the latter I feel like I am starting on something completely new instead of continuing reading on the heart developing. I get the feeling I am reading two different persons work, and some work should be put into these sections to make it feel more fluent.
* An idea for your project could be that you add a short anatomy section after the introduction, so the reader gets a picture and an overview of how the heart is structured. Then it is easier to understand the developing of the heart when you know how the heart is going to end up looking like.

---

Don’t forget to remove the hyperlinks that are under ‘Heart’ at the beginning of the page. Remove student numbers from the page. Add a brief description under images so that readers will understand what the image is showing. Remember to move references that are written in some sections to the ‘References’ subheading. The Notch Pathway is incomplete.

Subheadings and content that have been used show a good understanding of the topic area. The use of a table for the ‘Development Timeline’ shows the teams innovativeness. The use of simple sentences in the table allows readers to understand content simply. References have been done well, they are cited properly. The team have used their own images to show their understanding of the heart. The images that they have used have been properly cited: there are references, copyright statements and the Student Image template. Thorough description of abnormal development, animal models and current research which shows the comprehensive research that was done for the heart. The use of Glossary of Terms is helpful to readers who may not understand what some terms are.

---
Very informative and well written wiki. The glossary of terms is particularly useful and presented beautifully. The frequent addition of images and hand-made drawings are really good as they provide a useful visual reference point. The inclusion of a brief overview about the different animals studied in regards to the heart is very interesting. There is a minor spelling error in the table referring to Developmental timeline (week 5). The use of references is great, however maybe just include the links at the bottom of the wiki, to assist with the flow of information. Also add a description of your images so that viewers can more easily identify how the image relates to the text and the relevance of it. Overall, a really good wiki and well done.

----

The project is very good. There is a lot information on the page, there is a good description of each picture when you click on them, and there is a good brief introduction of each topic before going into depth on certain points. Most things are described clearly with pictures to support the information. Ending the project with a glossary of terms adds clarity to the project.

In particular, the “Developmental Signalling Processes” section is excellent. There is a description of where molecules are expressed, what cells they act on, the molecules’ roles in the cell signalling pathway on individual cells, and the molecules’ roles in overall heart development. The table describing different types of FGF signalling is excellent. In this section and throughout the project, there is a lot of description of research that has led to the discovery of the information presented on this page. The section “Animal Models” and “Current Research and Findings” add to this.

There are still a couple things to be fixed before the project is complete. There are some grammatical and spelling errors, particularly in “Proepicardium and Coronary Heart Development” that need to be edited. Some subheadings have nothing under them. Some references need to be fixed. Copyright information is needed when you click on some of the pictures. Instead of just using a paragraph style, emphasizing information by bolding specific words or using bulleted information may make the project easier to read and understand. Near the beginning of the project, a picture of the locations of the truncus arteriosus, bulbus cordis, primitive ventricle, and primitive atrium in the heart tube may add to the description of early development. In addition, a description of valve development could add to the project. Overall very good project.

---

Use of headings and subheadings break this complex developmental process in to understandable, clear sections.
The images chosen to reinforce the material are appropriate and I particularly like that time has been taken to draw a number of these.
There does seem to be an awful lot of information, and I wonder if this can be cut down at all. For example there is the section on signaling during development, which is a more complex section to understand. This is greatly helped by the diagrams but I can see that there are additional headings that are yet to have information added. It might be an idea to pick a few signaling pathways that occur and really perfect those. I think it has the potential to become very confusing to the reader otherwise.
It is very useful to the reader that you have included a glossary of terms, however I wonder if it may be more effective if this table is placed at the beginning of the page, or as a link at the top that can be opened up, so as the reader can familirise themselves with the terms prior to reading the page.
The page appears to be referenced extensively throughout and appropriately. Good job

---

Overall, this page has a good structure and was enjoyable to read. The headings and subheadings were clear and made it easier to understand the development process of the Heart. Perhaps it would be better to include relevant background information of the heart before jumping into the developmental process straightaway. There is a good amount of images (and well-drawn images) accompanying the text which aided in understanding the content, however some were not labelled with their appropriate descriptions. Most parts were cited correctly and properly, however some areas weren't cited at all such as "Current Research and Findings and "Cardiac Stem Cells". Also, some references were not done properly, check the "Primary Heart Field and Heart Tube Formation" section. Some sections were left blank, however I assume they will be completed over time. Glossary of terms was clever and made the content easier to understand (the heart is quite complicated to understand). Well done overall.

---

Overall, this page had a finished feel because the page is so heavily packed with information, there are some sections that were not completed. There is however, a lot of information that may leave the reader feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some sections are also hard to understand and comprehend especially due to the heavy use of biotechnological jargon (ie. SMAD-dependent, SMAD-independent pathways, β-catenin). A terminology/glossary section would be extremely helpful for this issue. I'd advise using more images in "Abnormal Development" (ie. x-rays or physical observations of sufferers) to help the reader visualise such abnormalities. Referencing under images should be moved to the references section and should be referenced using the '''''< ref >''' '''< / ref >''''' if in text. Overall, there is a lot of information, some of which is not necessarily important. I'd advise to cut down, make paragraphs more simple and straight to the point, and use images to help the reader visually understand and comprehend.

---

Introduction is very good and explains a lot. Under the heading “Primary heart field and heart tube formation” – the reference at the bottom should be removed.
Secondary heart field and cardiac looping: First sentence doesn’t really make sense, maybe switch it up a bit.
Under current research and findings you have labelled a figure figure 1, when it is not the first figure in your wiki page, seems a little confusing. Images also don’t have appriopriate copyright info, description and referencing. Also figure 2 is placed right in the middle of the sentence, maybe put it to the right so it doesn’t interrupt reading.
Information could be formatted better under the heading atrial septal defect! Maybe some subheadings for the different defects? Same goes with the ventricular septal defect, its easier to read when things are broken up. Glossary is very good!

All the information written on your page is very well written and easily understood.
Images could be labelled better, add a figure to each of them as when you are referring to figure 1 and 2 in your writing, the images aren’t labelled so its hard to tell what image you are referring to.
With references, I don’t like how there is a bunch at the end of some headings? Could be because you still need to read them but looks messy.
There is an overwhelming amount of information, so good job on doing so much research but it was quite tedious to read, not sure if this much information is needed? But it is very hard to fault your wiki page so this might be a bit picky.

---

The introduction is a brief and clear overview of the page. I liked how you acknowledged what your page will explore about the heart development. The “Developmental origin” subheading had good information and good diagrams in addition. However, I would adjust your layout a bit in this section so that the diagrams don’t look so awkward. You could do this by breaking down that second paragraph. The timeline provided a brief overview but I would also suggest adding another column for images. There is also a spelling error on week 5 – it says “srtats” where it should be “starts”.
As you go into “primary heart field and heart tube formation”, “secondary heart field and cardiac looping” and the next few sections, the references appear at the bottom of the sections. You should fix this so that they only appear in the reference list at the end. You could also probably bold “heart tube fusion”, “heart looping” and other terms in your developmental timeline since you explore them in depth.
The “developmental signalling process” subheading is very detailed. Since you also have a few more parts to complete into this section, it might be better to try to minimise some of the text. Your inclusion of current research is good and unique as you explore one paper in depth. However, I would suggest that you find another one or two. The “animal models” subheading should probably have a diagram or two of the referenced research papers if possible. Again with “abnormal development” subheading I would suggest some more images to see what these defects look like and possibly cutting down some text. In “future questions” you might also be able to provide a possible direction research might take to potentially answer this question. Also, you had a very good, long list of references.

---

The page goes through everything required for the project page. It would be nice if the pictures on the page have a figure number and a short title on the figures, so it is easier for the reader to understand what figure belongs to what part of the section. A figure number on the picture makes it able for the writer to refer to a specific picture. There is a good use of tables and self-drawn figures/picture. This makes the page clearer and more readable. There are some references on the page that needs a different formatting, so it is not fully viewed in the sections. It is important that the references are given right after the specific section and not at the bottom of the section.

*'''The Introduction''' section gives a good excitement for the reader before reading the page. This gives an idea of what information to expect from the page. A little section about the anatomy of the heart and a picture could give a better preparation for the reader to understand the developmental part of the heart.
*'''The Development Origin''' section has a bit confusing layout.
*I like that the '''Cardiac Neural Crest and Outflow tract''' sections have a self-drawn picture, but maybe you can draw it a bit clearer, so it is easier to read the writing and understand the figure There is no figure text on the page of the figure.
*'''Current Research And Findings, Animal Models and Abnormal Development:''' These sections have a bit of a messy layout. The context is good, but there I a lot of text and pictures kind of mingling into each other. You could make these sections more separate in the layout.
*'''The Glossary of terms''' helps the reader a lot.

---

The headings were all neat, concise and impressive. It successfully highlighted and sectioned the key topics in the development of the heart. The addition of the technical signalling pathways and the details of the development were well summarised with appropriate references in superscript format. There was a nice variety of visual resources, both hand drawn and externally sourced. Most images have their copyright approval and reference included perfectly, except "Figure 1 Morphological defects in CTCF mutant embryonic hearts" and "Figure 2 - defects of mitochondria in CTCF mutant hearts". There was a nice flow throughout the page through the use of effective paragraph sectioning. The table for the glossary of terms was really useful and neat.

Some of the images didn't have a box around it and these figures were not labelled, this should be easily changed in the edit mode. Some of the hand drawn images were somewhat unclear, due to the writing as well as the rough outline of the heart. Signatures should also be removed. The references were also retained in the bottom of the sections. It was a confusing because it wasn't next to any paragraphs that needed to be referenced. A reference was also repeated in this section.

''For example:''
"This image is based upon Robert H Anderson, Sandra Webb, Nigel A Brown, Wouter Lamers, Antoon Moorman Development of the heart: (3) formation of the ventricular outflow tracts, arterial valves, and intrapericardial arterial trunks. Heart: 2003, 89(9);1110-8 PubMed 12923046

Robert H Anderson, Sandra Webb, Nigel A Brown, Wouter Lamers, Antoon Moorman Development of the heart: (3) formation of the ventricular outflow tracts, arterial valves, and intrapericardial arterial trunks. Heart: 2003, 89(9);1110-8 PubMed 12923046

Marc Sylva, Maurice J B van den Hoff, Antoon F M Moorman Development of the human heart. Am. J. Med. Genet. A: 2014, 164A(6);1347-71 PubMed 23633400"

Finally, there is a great variety of reputable sources of information. The only thing that needs changing is that the reference list should be revised. Some were left as a link and the list were inconsistent with its reference format.

---

This wikipage had all the sections required for this assignment and the team was very detailed in their content. There was also a good amount of referencing. However for certain areas, the entire reference was there instead of just the number. Also, the student numbers should be removed from the page. There was also a good number of photos used and it was good that they had a mix between self-drawn images and images obtained online. However, a way that could improve the images would be to add a description or a caption under each figure so it's easier to know what the picture is about. Some photos in this article lacked description, reference and copyright information, so that could be added as well. For most of the article, I can see that the team carried out a great amount of research for this topic, however it was a little difficult to understand some parts as they were very lengthy and slightly too content heavy. For the developmental timeline, the use of a table was good but the information could be presented in a more concise manner and the headings could be slightly more prominent to make it more readable. The signalling processes was also very well researched but quite lengthy, perhaps a few main signalling pathways could be chosen instead. For the abnormal developments, each abnormalities were well researched on. Perhaps images could be added to show the abnormalities and also maybe one or two more defects would be good. Overall, I think this group did a great job in researching and providing information on this wikipage. Maybe with a bit of tweaking here and there to make it more concise and readable, this wikipage would make a really good project.

---

Well-structured page which seems to be quite detailed and long to read. The extensive use of subheadings make it a little harder to follow in some areas such as under “Developmental timeline”, where after the table the subheading “Primary Heart Field and…” appears to be a little misplaced or is lacking flow completely. Need to remove the student numbers from the page and also the two links under the initial “Heart” heading. In text referencing throughout the page seems to be consistent for the most part however, there are some areas where the correct format needs to be used (i.e., under “Wnt signaling” and “Cardiac Neural Crest and Outflow tract”). Some images do have a description of what is addressed however, many of them do not – this expansion would help with the overall reading experience as well as add further information for understanding. Overall, an extensive knowledge of the topic is well demonstrated through an attention to detail – but perhaps a more concise approach would add some clarity to the text.

---

The introduction was very good! I like how it introduced why the heart is so critical in early development, explained what you were going to discuss and where there would be gaps due to a lack of medical knowledge. The information in developmental origin and the developmental timeline is really great, however, I think you need to consider joining these two headings and not splitting them into one. You also state in developmental origin "as seen in figure two", however, none of your images have figure titles so I am not sure which figure you're actually referring to. The timeline is a good basic reference point, so I think it would be nice for it to be before the origin outline as it gives the basics which you then go into more detail about. I like that you put in the developmental signalling processes and then outlined each one of these, obviously the rest of those processes that have subheadings but no information just need to be finished. The current research is really interesting, again images just need a figure of some sort. The future questions section is a little confusing as I'm not sure if that's an area you're going to go into more depth over or if that's a future question you think research should look in to? So a clarification would be good. The glossary of terms is super helpful and all referencing looks good!

---

At first glance this project seems very detailed and lengthy. In my opinion, it could have too much text and maybe summarizing and condensing some sections could be beneficial. Collapsible windows or maybe more use of subheadings or dot points could be used to make the page clearer and less overwhelming. The diagrams and tables are very engaging and informative. However I do think the position and sizing of the diagrams could be improved to align it with the text better. The text and most of the diagrams seem to be well referenced. Another suggestion for this page would be to make the overall title of ‘Heart’ larger and clearer, perhaps include a diagram of the heart with the title to make it more attractive. The overall title should also be placed above the contents section.
Despite these suggestions, well done this page is very detailed and informative and you have clearly put a lot of work and effort into it.

---

Great detailing of the development and signaling processes involved, it really showed me that the group had extensive knowledge on this topic. In addition, there is a good balance of personal images (e.g. wnt signaling diagram) and web images which showed me that the group dedicated time to make sure the reader fully understood each aspect of the topic. Most images also are properly cited with copyright statements, references, and description (some are missing, but overall are done well). It was very helpful to include a glossary of terms at the end for the reader to refer to. An image for the cardiac looping steps would help to visualize steps. Information needs to be added for the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog, retinoic acid. While the detail is very informative, there is a lot of information and can be a little overwhelming. It might help to add more bullet points (with only essential information) or to edit some of the superfluous information. In addition, captions for the images would help so that the reader knows which image you’re referring to when referring to them in the text.

---
'Introduction' is clear and informative, well referenced and gives a good outline for the rest of the page. 'Developmental Origin' has a bit of a confusing set up.. pictures are seemingly scattered and need captions. The 'Morphology of the Heart tube formation' hand-drawn figure is almost an exact replica of the original.. not sure if this is allowed because they are so similar. 'Developmental Timeline' has a very brief table.. would benefit from a better description of each week of development. This section has a couple of random references that should be at the bottom. 'Developmental Signalling Processes' diagrams need captions. There is a lot of information here which is very detailed. 'Current Research and Findings' has good subheadings and picture use; pictures need to have copyright information and citations added. Very detailed with good references throughought. 'Future Questions' needs to be added to but has shown evidence of initial research into this area. 'Glossary of terms' is a very good idea that has not yet been shown in other group topics. Maybe look into researching how to link certain words in the article to redirect to the bottom of the page to the Glossary of terms for quick definitions? Some references also need to be properly cited in the 'References' section. Over all, really well researched with some sections needing a bit more work.
---

Overall a very in-depth page with most of the required subjects covered. Some general notes; the figures would have benefited from appropriate captions but were helpful nonetheless. Referencing and overall visual formatting could be improved. The page is written well and enjoyable to read.
"Primary heart field and heart tube formation" could benefit from a diagram or figure since it is a lot of text that could be hard to conceptualise. The signalling processes are explained very well and in deep detail. Just a note though; the addressing of so many different variables in the signalling is a little confusing and hard to follow. Perhaps a more condensed response might be a little more straightforward. The diagram of the signalling pathways under "Wnt Signalling" was likewise hard to follow, and no key was given. Current Research and Animal Models were covered well and the explanation for their research and the key results highlighted were fascinating. Abnormal development was likewise addressed very well and the glossary of terms was very much appreciated.

---

User:Z5113034

2017-10-12T01:15:33Z

Z5113034: /* Peer Reviews */

2017-09-05T12:47:26Z

Z5113034: /* Neurons */