Talk:2014 Group Project 1

From Embryology

This is the discussion page for your project.

  • Use this page to discuss online the project with your group members.
  • Paste useful resources here.
  • Remember to use your signature button to identify who you are when adding content here.
  • The following collapsed tables provide starting points for students during project work, you also have tutorials built into practical classes and practice exercises for individual assessmet items.
Group Assessment Criteria
Mark Hill.jpg
  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
Uploading Images
Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Images

The following describes how to upload an image with all the information that must be associated with it.

The image must first be uploaded to the site.

  1. Open the left hand menu item “Toolbox” and click “Upload file” and a new window will open.
  2. Click the button ”Choose file” and navigate to where the image is located on your computer and double click the file.
  3. The window will now show the file name in the “Source filename” window.
  4. You can then rename the uploaded file in the “Destination filename” window.
    1. Make sure the new name accurately describes the image.
  5. Add a description of the image to the “Summary” window. Note the description must include:
    1. An image name as a section heading.
    2. Any further description of what the image shows.
    3. A subsection labeled “Reference” and under this the original image source, appropriate reference and all copyright information.
    4. Finally a template indicating that this is a student image. {{Template:Student Image}}

Images not including the above information will be deleted by the course coordinator and be considered in the student assessment process.

Students cannot delete uploaded images. Contact the course coordinator with the file address.

Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Referencing

All references used in making your project page should be cited where they appear in the text or images.

In page edit mode where XXXX is the PubMed ID number use the following code.

<ref name=”PMIDXXXX”><pubmed>XXXX</pubmed></ref>

For references not listed on PubMed, and text can be inserted between <ref></ref> tags.

Where the reference list will appear make a new section and on a new line the following code. <references/>

Mark Hill.jpg First Read the help page Copyright Tutorial

Currently all students originally assigned to each group are listed as equal authors/contributors to their project. If you have not contributed the content you had originally agreed to, nor participated in the group work process, then you should contact the course coordinator immediately and either discuss your contribution or request removal from the group author list. Remember that all student online contributions are recorded by date, time and the actual contributed content. A similar email reminder of this information was sent to all current students.

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

"Claiming credit for a proportion of work contributed to a group assessment item that is greater than that actually contributed;"

Academic Misconduct carries penalties. If a student is found guilty of academic misconduct, the penalties include warnings, remedial educative action, being failed in an assignment or excluded from the University for two years.

Please also read Copyright Tutorial with regard to content that can be used in your project.

Project Analysis 24 Sep
Group 2014 project edits 24sep.png

--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) Individual student data for each group has also been analysed.

Student 2014 project edits 24sep.png

--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) I have masked student ID.

  • Individual students will know how much work you have been doing to date.
  • I will be contacting those student on 5 edits or below.

2014 Student Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7 | Group 8

--Mark Hill (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2014 (EST) These student projects have now been finalised and undergoing final assessment.

Group Assessment Criteria
  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Final Assessment

  • Figure caption "Embryonic Origins of Respiratory System" is inappropriate as it shows the adult anatomy and no origins.


  • There are several inappropriate naming and typographical errors in your image files.
  • Z3330991 You have uploaded 3 images with the incorrect reference cited.

Peer Reviews

The introduction is shaping quite well. The information used are all relevant and provide an overall understanding of the respiratory system. It is great how you have divided the system into the two main parts, the conducting zone and respiratory zone, providing information and images for both. With that said, the images contain no caption or any description when clicked on and more work is needed in this area as explaining the images/slides will heighten the educational aim of the project. Furthermore, as Mark Hill has mentioned, you must cover all the components required in uploading and using an image, such as adding the copyright information.

Presenting the lung development stages in a table format is very clever and the table constructed contains valuable information simplifying the developmental stages of the respiratory system. You have gone one step further than the required by showing that development does not only occur embryonically but up to 8 years of age. Good work. In terms of the references in this section, they all seem to be fine, however I am unable to click on the “Lung Development” link, which returns with “object not found.” So please fix that issue as the reader/marker must be able to validate all the references if need be.

The current research section of this project page seems promising with a wide range of information. The foundations and structure are present however more information is required, which I know will be added before final submission. Identical to the introduction, it is good that you have divided the section into subsections based on the current research style and understanding that physiologically the lungs can be divided into the conduction system and functional unit. Numbering and dot points may be used, but I highly recommend that it is not used throughout the whole section. Moreover, your addition of an image highlighting Schematic lung disease and normal vs diseased lung models is appropriate for current research and models, however it should not be placed at the end under the references, you need to find a place between a paragraph that discusses or introduces this model. Lastly, there is a small formatting error in the middle of this section, I assume that is where an image should be located however check if you have written the command correctly.

It is obvious that the historical section is well researched and that a number of articles have been referenced. The use dot points and dates are great and simple to understand, however if you make a timeline and paragraphs, the page might look more professional. You have the information required to create a simple timeline and paragraphs that follow. Great historical images used however the first lacks any description and the second lacks a reference.

A vast range of abnormalities are addressed with references and thorough research into each. Some require more information, but overall all abnormalities are mentioned at a substantial extent with both full sentences and dot points.

Overall this group has provided a well researched project, certain formatting errors need to be addressed and some more information can be added, otherwise good work!

The wiki-page is very thorough and informative and addresses the majority of the marking criteria well. However there are some points I’d like to highlight for further editing. The second and third sentences in the introduction paragraph are confusing. It would be better to clarify which parts of the respiratory system are derived from endoderm and mesoderm. I particularly liked that the embryonic and fetal stages were quantified by week of development early on in the introduction to indicate what weeks of development the project was focusing on. It would also be extremely helpful to students who are using this as a learning resource if subheadings or brief descriptions were used underneath the images. What I really liked was the use of the ‘lung development table’. The layout made it easy to read and the explanations were not overly long-winded or complicated.

At times there was a bit of repetition of information under different subheadings, for example regarding the two components of the respiratory system. It would be a good idea to read through the entire project as a whole rather than one subheading at a time, and then restructure the content to minimize repetition. There were also a few minor spelling and grammatical errors in the first paragraph which can be fixed up post-editing. The current and historic findings were divided into separate headings and referencing of sources used was done extremely well. I noticed however that the schematic on lung disease doesn't seem to really flow with the text in its current position. I would suggest to move it down to the abnormalities section.

Overall the group has done an excellent job at referencing and has derived information from a variety of mediums including video clips and animations. What I would suggest however is to keep all the references at the end of the page. I think this would make the project appear much more organized and easier to read. Other than that, I think the group has definitely produced a high quality wiki page with useful information on the fetal development of the respiratory system. I think it was pitched at an appropriate level for university students and included helpful diagrams and illustrations.

Overall this is a well produced project so far, very impressed. Only minor changes to polish up some sections are needed. The introduction help with orientating the reader with the content especially with the origins of development and brief on how fetal compares with embryonic stages as well as conducting and respiratory side of lung function. The project as a whole is not text heavy with some good images included which again are helpful in guiding the information

The tables and placement of content is very well thought out with the exception of referencing. It would be advisable to move all the references to one spot (preferably the end) so content isn't so broken between sections. viewers looking for the references can follow those link you've provided wherever they end up.

Pictures, while a good addition to supplement the text information, need to have more information regarding the individual images. some text highlighting what the viewer is looking at in the image will be beneficial

some sections need more work in them. Abnormalities is looking good (but i'm sure will improve), but other sections like Current models and historic findings needs to have more research with integrated referencing

The introduction section is very clear and informative and nicely organised. The images look great, however I think that perhaps some information should be placed alongside them to describe what each figure/image is demonstrating. Maybe a few sentences to describe an overall objective of the page can also be added for extra clarity. Lung development stages section has a great layout and is nice and easy to read. A few images added to the table may improve this section as the visualisation of this developmental process would greatly aid in the readers understanding of the topic. Referencing also needs a little work to be presented correctly. I particularly like the current research section of the page- the presentation of new findings according to different sub-topics in respiratory development is a great idea! The image itself would look better with a different placement as it seems rather isolated and again some information as to what the diagram is demonstrating would be beneficial. The historic findings section was particularly well done also, great images used and referencing is done very well. The abnormalities section was a great read, nicely organised via the subheadings and well written. Some subheadings may need a little more detail with information and maybe a few more images would also go a long way, referencing was done very well. Overall really nice page! ☺

The introduction is very informative and I particularly like how it describes the embryonic development of the respiratory system as well, since in order to understand what is happening in the fetal period, it is important to first understand what happened before that in the embryonic period. Perhaps the introduction could also introduce what information the page is going to contain.

The timeline is well presented in a table form, however maybe it would be better suited to be in the introduction section. The table could also incorporate the use of histological images to illustrate the differences between the time periods. Also, the sub sections titled ‘current models’ and ‘current research and findings’ could be part of a larger section and not fall under the ‘Lung Development Stages’ section.

There is no information as yet under ‘Current models’ however extensive research seems to be conducted on ‘current research findings’. Perhaps it would be better to include more journal articles in this section. The use of dot points and numbering systems is also very effective in allowing the information to be easily read and flow. More articles also need to be covered in the ‘Historic findings section’ as it is very brief at the moment with only a few sentences on each article.

The ‘abnormalities’ section is very well done with an abundance of conditions however more images should be uploaded for each abnormality in order to see what it visually presents as in the fetus and also to make the page look nicer.

The images uploaded onto the page contain adequate information explaining them, copyright information as well as the student image template, which is good. There is one student drawn image, which is also great, but maybe some more would further illustrate the group’s understanding of their topic.

The referencing is done correctly mostly throughout the page but is scattered throughout every section so perhaps it would be better to have them in one section at the bottom of the page under the heading entitled ‘References’ and numbered as they appear in the text. In-text citations are throughout and appear to be done correctly.

Overall, this is a very good effort and a bit of editing will make the page look much more neater and organized. Keep up the great work!

This project is extremely well done. I found the overall layout of your work to be easy to read and succinct. It captured my attention throughout the entirety of the project and was engaging with the use of bullet points. I thought your use of diagrams was great in aiding the understanding of this topic, however I thought that more diagrams or pictures could be added in order to help the reader visualize exactly what’s going on. I thought that te developmental timeline was a great idea, however could benefit from some more images or diagrams to assist in understanding the developmental stages. I thought the historic findings sections was especially well done as it appears well researched and thoroughly informative. The abnormalities was also well done, however again could benefit from the addition of a few more diagrams.

I think that with the addition of more drawings needs to be some attention to detail when referencing and stating copyright. I’ve noticed that some pictures lack copyright and some don’t have a description, making it difficult to understand the context of the picture and to envisage how it relates to the content. Whilst this is mostly self explanatory- I think that because this is an informative piece it pays to spoon-feed us a bit. Also, your referencing could use a bit of a tidy, but that can easily be fixed before submission. I think that overall this has great potential to be a wonderful project and I look forward to seeing it at its completion!

The introduction was written quite well as it explains what the respiratory system is about and the origin of its development. It also briefly highlights the difference between the embryonic and fetal stage which is important in enabling the viewers to have an understanding on what the project will be focusing on. I also like how the group distinguished between the two zones of the respiratory tract and adequately described the features and function of each. The content in the lung development stages clearly relates to the topic and underlines fetal development. The group briefly mentioned the key features in each stage instead of pasting a whole lot of information; this makes it easier for viewers to understand. Overall the content relates to the learning objectives of embryology and the level of research is good as exemplified under ‘Current Research and Findings’ and ‘abnormalities’ (many forms of diseases described). The project however could benefit from having a ‘Glossary’ list so that viewers can understand some uncommon words.

The images under introduction and the image used for Meconium aspiration syndrome have not been referenced properly as there is missing information such as ((Template: Student Image)), description, copyright information and proper references for some. The image used under the ‘current research and findings’ subheading is a good example for the group to copy the referencing style. It is also vital that the group adds a brief description of what the image illustrates as a footnote to help viewers understand the relation of the content and image (this is seen in the image under ‘surfactant’). More images could be added such as in the ‘lung development stage’ and under abnormalities. If images for lung development stages aren’t easily accessible, it is perhaps a good idea to draw them. The table format used for ‘lung development stages’ makes it easy for the viewers to navigate which is a good feature used in the project.

In terms of referencing, there are many in-cite references missing such as in the ‘introduction’ and in ‘lung development stages’. It is important to have these references formatted correctly under the one ‘references’ subheading. There seems to be many ‘references’ subheadings making it harder for viewers to navigate. Some references are shown as ‘ which needs to be fixed right away. Overall, the content seems well written, formatted and concise making it easy to understand. However the problems related to referencing needs to be corrected as this is inconsistent throughout the project.

This project was done really well. All key points, i.e. development, historic findings, etc., were clearly described. In terms of content, this group did a great job. It is very informative and all information they have included are relevant to the topic. There are a few mentions of embryonic stage but I do understand why, particularly for the development of the respiratory system. The developmental timeline is good but an image about the development would make it better. Remember to add in-text citations for this part. Historic findings section is very detailed and exceptional. Abnormalities is done well. A couple or more images would make this section really great. There are images that help with understanding the content. Try to find information on current treatments and/or management techniques for each disease.

However, some images have no captions and so some seem vague as to what they’re about. There are a few images missing copyright, specifically the 2nd photo on the project page and the historical image of lung development. From what I know, images from textbooks normally can’t be used because of copyright. The content is cited and referenced correctly. A bit messy with the references right now but I understand why. Just don’t forget to organise it before submission. Also, don’t forget to mention the other sections in the introduction. Overall, this project is done really well. It is very informative and easy to understand. In summary, just a few more images and correction of typos and this project would be remarkable. Well done!

Firstly, great job on the layout and formatting of the project, everything is easy to find and overall, it reads well. The introduction provides great insight of what to expect on the page. However, it lacks in-text citations for the first three subheadings of the page, as well as the table of lung developmental stages. The first two images also don’t have a description when I click on it, I don’t know what I’m looking at. The “student template” is also missing for the images. I would suggest you look up the tutorial for uploading images on the pages as Mark has extensive information for the proper steps required for uploading images. Otherwise, the lung developmental stages table is informative and easy to read. I would also recommend adding an image for better visualization of the developmental process.

The historical findings and current research models have very detailed content, and look as though they have been referenced correctly using in-text citations, I’m impressed. Although, I would suggest you leave all the references to the end by simply putting </references> at the bottom of the page, as it looks neater to have them all in one place, rather than at the bottom of each sub-heading. The abnormalities section is done well and there are a wide number of abnormalities covered. The detail of the first two is more in depth than the rest, I’m unsure whether they was more information on those particular abnormalities or their still needs to be information added, but I suggest to have the same amount of information on each disease, if possible. Overall, the project is very informative and presented well. It just need a few minor edits.

The pages structure is well done, with appropriate use of heading. The introduction explains the general development of the respiratory system, differentiating embryonic, fetal and postnatal time-span. Like division of conducting and respiratory zones with strong general description of each zones components. The referencing of the first three heads content and images was not present though I presume this could be easily resolved. The Development stages table gives is simple yet informative, particularly liked how the stages during the fetal period had more in-depth feature description then the embryonic and postnatal stages.

The Current research and findings section was in-depth with strong explanations and in-text referencing; only part lacking referencing is the Functional unit section. Some sentences should be broken up to avoid excessive use of commas “However, a study conducted…”. There seems to be a picture missing or placed incorrectly for one of the 2013 studies. The Lung Model picture is relevant but with no caption, though the description and referencing when clicking on the image is solid. Little improvement is needed for the Historical findings and Abnormalities sections, great referencing and content. Particularly impressed with the sheer amount of abnormalities presented, with information being sourced from 2-3 references for each abnormality.

To improve further, referencing needs to be added particularly to the introduction, conduction and respiratory zone. The references need to be collected at the bottom of the page instead of after every couple of sections. The removal of the multiple reference subheadings would make the content and page in general easier to navigate. Many of the earlier images should be captioned properly and referenced properly, with missing info like ((Template: Student Image)), description, copyright info. The content of Respiratory and Lung Development Stages could be slightly more in-depth though not too significant of an issue. Overall content is written well, providing information on all the important objectives, only place improvement is properly required is referencing and some formatting.

The introduction provided good background information about the lungs and its general development, however seemed to lack any further explanation as to what else would be covered on the page (current research, abnormalities). I found most of the sentences to be short and abrupt, and more in the form of statements rather than an explanation. This is the same for the following paragraphs regarding the two zones. I would combine several of the sentences together, and restructure them so that they do not start in the same manner e.g. of the first four sentence in your introduction, three of them begin with the words ‘The respiratory system’, and over half the sentences in the entire paragraph begin with ‘The’. There are a few grammatical errors within the text that should be corrected e.g. ‘till’ of ‘until’, ‘id’ instead of ‘is’. The images used fit well, but there is no caption to explain what they are images of and what they are trying to show. This is also not indicated on the summary of the image, one of which also doesn’t include any copyright information.

The lung development stages were done very well, simplified and tabulated making it very clear. My only concern for this part is that it should be the main part of the project, the area where the development of the lungs is fully explained, yet it is the smallest section of the page. Try to expand on it maybe? Or add a picture or two to enlarge the section?

The current research and findings section seems very thorough, lots of content, good explanations. Very minor problems however; a slight tendency to over use commas in some areas, while not in others. The current models area has not been added to; make sure to fill it in, or will it be scrapped? I have also noticed a picture has been deleted so make sure to get that issue fixed if you still want to use the same image. Is the second picture under this heading part of the section? As it is after the references so I'm not sure where it lies exactly. The image should be captioned as well.

I really like the historical findings section, the information seems more concise when it is presented in bullet points. The second picture within this section is well done and very neatly labeled (I thought it was an image from the internet). The first picture though, needs a caption added as well as copyright information. The abnormalities section is very extensive which can be bother good and bad. For some of the abnormalities there is a lot of detail presented, while for others there is very little. I think maybe that as long as you mention what it is, how you get it/how it forms, some statistics and maybe an image, that should be more than enough. Also, I would remove all the sub-headings under abnormalities and have them just written in bold. Otherwise, when looking at the contents at the top of the page, it looks as though half your page is solely focused on abnormalities.

Overall, I think this page is well done and only a focus on sentence structure, a bit on grammar, and captioning pictures with correct copyright info is needed. Other than these main focus areas, one other point to make would be all the references should be at the bottom of the page.

In this review I intend to highlight the merits of your project as well as provide some constructive criticism in light of the marking criteria of this task.

The page is well structured and provides perfect balance between written text and images. However some of the included images do not compliment the text. I suggest adding labels or descriptive annotations to these images using paint. Alternatively you could refer to these images in your text e.g “ as seen in Figure 4a” and use them to make the descriptive content easier to visualise. You could also include a simple written description of what each image showing in the image link. I found the table on the stages of lung development a really effective way of organising the content and I was able to understand much of it in a quick glimpse! I like how the text is summarised and highlights the main developmental changes that are occurring at each stage. Just to make it more engaging, perhaps you could include matching images in a another column.

Under the section of current findings, I believe that most of the information included is relevant and incredibly appropriate articles have been selected. I think its good that this section is delving into the area of molecular signalling underlying the morphological changes that we see. I believe your project would greatly benefit if there was more material discussing the biochemical signalling and recent findings in relation to this. However, I am not sure if the details on cell type should be in this section, this section might need some re-organising.

I understand that the history is a difficult topic to research. The information on our understanding of surfactant is appropriate, detailed and very informative. However I think you need to include more information on our understanding of stages in fetal lung development. Explore the transition in research focus investigating morphology to molecular changes. Perhaps use the library database to find relevant historic journal articles in the database. It was good to see the use of relevant historic images.

A number of abnormalities have been identified and described, I think its great that each section includes a description of the abnormality, and goes on to discuss the cause and implications of each disease. I would only recommend including images to make the content easy to visualise. Great Work!

Overall the project is coming along really well ! Just ensure that you proof read and review before the final submission. Also include in-text references and compile all your references to one section at the end of the page. Good Luck!!

Well explained introduction and the histological images provided are great. In the first section the addition of in text citations would be useful. The content is explained really well and a good use of detail in the paragraphs is not too overwhelming. Good use of formatting with the inclusion of the table, helps to keep the content clear and concise. The current research, findings and models is present really well, good use of referencing and in text citations. Current findings, models and research is presented really well, good use of referencing and in text citations. Information is clear and with sufficient detail. There are a variety of formatting techniques used which is great to see. Good use of images, however seems to be missing info, suggest filling it out and maybe fixing some of the formatting errors shown but otherwise really well done. This section shows a good amount of research conducted. The historic findings are also well presented, the use of dot points to format the info is very useful and provides clarity. A timeline for the key historic dates might be helpful and another use of visuals. Great to see a variety of abnormalities, shows an extensive research really well presented. Would be great to see more images for this section and maybe drawings too.

This group overall has done really well, there are only a couple of suggestions for the page to be complete these include filling in the missing info under the sub heading ‘current models’. The in text citations and referencing in the first section should be added in to avoid losing marks. Also try adding captions to some of the images, a brief description of what the image is showing. Evidently the research conducted has been quite extensive and the group has worked well to ensure all parts are completed equally. Overall the page is structured really well and organized in an understandable manner. The use of a variety of images and formatting techniques is really great. Just a few minor adjustments and this page will be really great. Great work everyone !

The group project has covered a wide angle of the fetal development of Respiratory system. The introduction is very concise and informative, but it would have been better to give us a heads up of what is going to be included in the wiki-page. The different histological diagrams of 'respiratory zones' were good in giving us an idea of what the cells look like, however, none of the diagrams are labelled leaving us to our own imagination of what is what (I'm guessing the first picture in the project represents a zone of respiratory cells?)

The tabulated data makes it easier to understand the different stages of development, splitting it into different stages (including the weeks underneath), I think it would be better to maybe condense the information in the table to key dot points as currently it seems saturated with information. Maybe even include histological diagrams of the different development stages

There are no current models listed in the 'Current Research, Models and Findings' section but there has been extensive research in the Research and Findings. The information in this section is very well laid out allowing easy reading and understanding of the information that has been presented. The diagram used at the end of this subsection is very simple and informative :)

In the 'Conducting System' - the picture does not appear for me (only me?)

Historical findings have also been extensively covered, a well put out timeline with different observation timepoints. Abnormalities have also been extensively covered in the group project, however I think it would be better to employ the use of more diagrams of the different diseases and abnormalities.

Having the references scattered throughout the page seems to break the flow of the group project :/ Maybe have them all grouped up under a separate subheading :)

Great work on your project, a little touch up here and there with some more diagrams will greatly improve this project

The intro is very good and the images are a good size but there needs to be some description to make it relevant to the project. Need to edit ‘Conducting Zone’ info since there are some grammatical and spelling errors. Also should have in-text referencing in this section of the project with a long list of all the references at the end. You can go onto other people’s reports to find the coding for this reference style.

The information on the lung development timeline is fantastic but it is a bit dense. Splitting it into bullet points might be a better way of organising it so peers get a more effective learning experience when they read it. In the conducting system under current findings it looks like there has been an attempt to upload an image called “400px” however the link leads nowhere. It has great information, very interesting and concise. However the references at the end of this section should be incorporated at the very end of the wiki page. This would make it flow better.

Excellent images of the diseased lung compared to normal lung, however it might make more sense for these to be under the lung abnormalities subheading. There is excellent information on the historical findings. It has been written in an easy to understand manner and all the information is relevant. There is also excellent referencing and good use of diagrams. However I still think that the references should all be together at the very end of the project page.

The abnormalities section is very in depth however there is a bit too much information. It would be easier to follow and more interesting if there were images associated with the information, or maybe if the information was tabulated that would make it easier to follow. Well done on this project! It is clear that a lot of research has been done outside.

This is a really good project. First thing noticeable on the page is the amount of information you have which is great. The introduction is really well written and I like the fact that you have included images in this part as it makes it so much easier to understand. I also found it quite easy to grasp the difference in fetal and embryonic periods so well done as this is an important part of the project. This table of the lung development stages is great and really well done.

One thing you could maybe do here is add a few diagrams. I know you have more diagrams down below but I think it’s something that might make it even easier to follow. You obviously haven’t found any current models at the moment. Don’t know if this helps but it may for the models: PMID: 22876201. Current research and findings again is good. Something which seems to be reoccurring with your page is the fact that the references are spread all over the page. I think it would look much better if all the references were at the bottom of the page as this makes you page look more professional and aesthetically pleasing.

Maybe add some student drawings as I think this would more interesting for your page and be a bit more unique. Something else to note is the abnormalities part. It’s great that you have a lot of different abnormalities but I feel as though some of them such as cystic fibrosis and laryngeal atresia could have been given a bit more of information to supplement what you are saying. Also adding a diagram would be good to make it easier for the viewer to understand.

Overall it’s a well presented page with some quality information. Maybe look at your referencing technique, adding some more student images and a bit more detail to the abnormalities to take what at the moment is a good project to a great project. Best of luck!!

Overall, the project at this stage consists of a good integration of text, images and references throughout. The introduction is well-written and gives an overview of the two parts of the respiratory system (conducting and respiratory zones). I think it is a good idea that your group has split this up and explained both parts separately as it helps to orient an unknowing reader, especially as the gross anatomical structures are also described (e.g. trachea, larynx, bronchi). However, in-text referencing is needed in this introductory segment to provide the reader with the source of all information, exactly where it appears. You could refer to Dr Hill’s instructions on how to do this if needed, or see another group’s page on Edit mode. Also, the images used in the introduction should have a small caption beneath them, otherwise it is hard to tell what the images show exactly and how this may be relevant to the complementary text.

In terms of heading and subheading organisation, I like how you have split the content up into 5 main areas of introduction, lung development stages, current research models/findings, historic findings and abnormalities. This makes the page easy to navigate and the subheadings under each section are relevant. The use of a table in the ‘lung development stages’ section is very well done and appropriate, as it segments the information into a clean, readable format that a student could simply refer to if they were learning from scratch. The information in the table is succinct and provides all the main points. The only improvement here I would suggest, is aligning the content to the left, as it may seem more pleasing to the eye to have even spacing rather than centre alignment. Also, the ‘references’ have been placed as subheading 2.1, whereas the other ‘reference’ sections have not been given a separate subheading, so I would consider making this consistent throughout the project page.

The section on current research models and findings is concise and informative, with good use of numbering to make the information easier to read rather than having long and chunky paragraphs. Although a minor detail, there is one part that says “a study conducted last year”. Since these Wiki pages will be left online, it is important to specify the exact year here, and provide an in-text reference to the study mentioned so a reader can easily locate it. I like the use of dot points in this section, making it look appealing, however the image used should also include a caption, as should the others on the page. Be careful of copyright infringement regarding image use, as there appears to be a file with a ‘Permission Error’ in this section, which may need to be manually removed.

The ‘historic findings’ section was also well-done, especially because it used dot points to segment the information and show the exact years of each discovery. Once again though, the image requires a caption and the references for this section seem to be split into 2 parts; one list from 1-14 then another from 1-4. I think the list from 1-4 needs a subheading to show how those sources are different to the ones above it, otherwise both lists need to be integrated into one.There are also some parts that have coding showing and which just need to be removed with editing.

Lastly, the section on abnormalities is also of a high standard as each abnormality begins with a brief description then goes into details by using dot points. There is good use of in-text referencing followed by a reference list which is correctly formatted too. The image included has a caption which is good, as other sections lack this, however I would consider adding more images to make this part more visually appealing and engaging to the reader.

It is evident that a lot of work has been done on this page as each section is detailed and referenced well, with relevant information. Maybe just consider adding some student-drawn images too, but otherwise, the project is of very good quality so far.


The introduction doesn’t seem to be a flowing paragraph, but is a collection of rather short sentences with the topic changing every time and is hard to follow, and some like these “During the embryonic and fetal stage the respiratory system is developing.” seem rather obvious for the target audience of university science students.

The overall layout of the project seem weird as well - putting the current researches, and historic findings before the conducting / respiratory zone seem to make sense. Also the amount of information per section is extremely unbalanced; there is too much abnormalities and hardly sufficient information on the actual development of the lungs. The references are not put together yet either. The lung development stage graph is really well done, easy to read and is visually appealing. Also maybe add a few photo’s in the abnormalities section just to make it visually appealing; there is a lot of information in there but only has one picture. There are a few parts with grammatical errors / could use with some better punctuation and wording. For example the first sentence under the conducting zone “The conducting zone is made up nose to bronchioles and its function is to filter, warm, and moisten air and conduct it into the lung” could be better reworded as “The conducting zone’s function is to filter, warm and moisten air and conduct it to the lungs, and is made up of the nose, pharynx, trachea and bronchioles” or something along those lines.

The product was done well overall with lots of information and a good structure. However, I am a bit confused about the sections “respiratory” and “lung development stages”. I guess “lung development stages” is also under “respiratory”, but it seems that they are separated into two big sections.

The introduction clearly explains the development of respiratory system. It is good to divide respiratory tract into 2 main parts and explain them separately. It would be better if it includes a sentence like ‘this website will focus on fetal development of respiratory system.

Using table to explain different stages of lung development is a good idea. It would be easier to read if they are typed in point forms with some images included.

More images could be added under current research, models and findings for easier understanding. Some information should be added under current models.

The historic findings and abnormalities are good and informative.

Some images do not have the information about copyright. It would be better if there is a title for each image included.

In terms of referencing, they are missing in the sections under introduction, conducting zone and respiratory zone. In-text references are also missing in the table about the stages and features of lung development. Also, the images used have not been referenced. Reference list at the end rather than under each section should be used instead.

It is overall a good project and well-researched. More images can be included to balance with the huge amount of text.

The Introduction of Group 1 is done very well. It is clear, descriptive and very informative. The introduction has been well categorised into categories, with the appropriate choice of labels and subheadings. There is a good choice of pictures and diagrams, which demonstrate a sufficient level research beyond the formal teaching activities. I believe the group could add what they’re page hopes to achieve (outcomes).

The timeline aspect of the group is also well presented. A good choice of histological images would add depth and aid in understanding. The information in this section needs to be referenced correctly.

The current research and findings section is very informative and is referenced excellently. I do believe the layout of this section could be improved, with a better choice of subheadings and clear dates of publication (Its all about recent findings). I believe this section could be summarised further and the picture layout improved to make this section clearer and more succinct. Excellent job nevertheless

The historic section is excellent. It is well referenced, written and explained. It is very informative with an excellent choice of well-described historical images. Particularly enjoyed the timeline on the study of ‘Surfactant’

The abnormalities section has an excellent and varied choice of various abnormalities/diseases. It has an excellent choice of headings and subheadings. The content is also correctly cited and referenced. There is strong evidence of significant scientific research. I do believe the addition of images would further add to the overall understanding of this section. I do believe more information could be added to the ‘Azygos Lobe’, ‘Congenital Laryngeal Webs’ and ‘CHAOS’ section or these sections removed and more content/depth added to the other remaining sections (only a suggestion though!)

Overall structure of this group project is decent with use of many articles to support information provided. Furthermore, the structure for this project could be improved on as there are minimal grammatical errors. It is also able to explain concepts regarding the development of the respiratory system in the embryonic stages. If concepts can be conveyed effectively to the reader then this indicates that the project group have been able to demonstrate their understanding on their chosen topic. It is important to identify the advantages and disadvantages and these are;


• Images used are effective in further summarising or explaining content. For example the image under the respiratory zone heading is good in that it shows the histological growth of the tissue as the week’s progress on.

• Heading s provided are short and right to the point.

• The table on lung development stages is very effective as it summarises changes that occur in the weeks following embryonic development.

• Abnormalities section has also been clearly written with in-text citations and a variety of research articles used to explain the conditions.


• First and foremost, most images uploaded onto the group project 1 page do not have any descriptions as well an image name to explain what it is. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand what the image is displaying. Also a file has been deleted (400px) indicating that copyright issues have occurred.

• Consistency across the whole project page is not evident. This can be seen as each section has references being placed under paragraphs and then a full reference list is given in the end. So all references need to be placed in the reference list at the end.

• Historic findings are an important section here that needs work on as there isn’t enough information regarding articles from the 18th century being stated.

The introduction is written well and it provides sufficient background information on the anatomy and development of respiratory system. It is also well-divided into the two conducting and respiratory zones. However it lacks to provide information on what is included in the page such as current research and abnormalities. In addition, this assignment is aimed to describe the fetal development but fetal period does not seem to be the focus in this project. I understand that it is difficult to focus on fetal period, especially for the respiratory system but if that is the case, you can mention why you’re also including information on embryonic and postnatal periods in your introduction. There are also a few spelling errors within the text that should be corrected (such as ‘id’ instead of ‘is’). The images of the histological sections are relevant but there is no caption for any of the photos and it is difficult to understand what they are trying to show. There is no information provided on the summary of the image either and one of the images is missing copyright information. In addition, the text as well as the images in the introduction needs to be referenced on the page. The table of lung development stages is simple and very well summarised. The content of this section relates to the learning objectives of embryology however there is not enough explanation considering that this section is the main part of the project. In order to aid with understanding of the development of lungs, simple diagrams could be drawn that show different developmental stages. You can then explain more on what happens in each stage.

The first paragraph of the current research and findings about the conducting system and functional unit is already discussed in the introduction and therefore there is no need to include it again in this section. Try to include more precise information on the findings of each study and also talk about the new models that have aided in understanding of the development of this system. For example you can elaborate more on the three geometrical models that are proposed in the review study in 2013(there is no information under the “current models” subheading at the moment- you can put this information there). Also it is a good idea to organise the research findings in chronological order so that new advancements are found in more recent studies (2011 must come before 2013).The two alveolar cell types under current research is irrelevant – I would put them under introduction. Also I don’t understand why the image of lung diseases is under current research (maybe put that image under abnormalities?)

The historic findings section is very informative, especially the “surfactant” section. You can also tabulate the data to make it look neater. However from my understanding, in this section we also need to provide information on the history and stages of fetal lung development. I know it is hard to find this information but maybe try looking for review articles that summarise the findings of past studies in this area. The abnormality section is well written and thorough with so many abnormalities named and described. The only suggestion is to include more images.

Overall, this web page shows a very effective team work and it is clear that work has been allocated with each person working on a different subheading. You only need to pay attention to minor issues mentioned above. Also in terms of referencing, there are many in-text references missing in different sections. It is very important to format these references correctly under one ‘references’ subheading at the end of the page (instead of having a separate reference list for each section).

The structure of this page looks good regarding the text and image ratio. Stages of lung development table was very effective for me to grasp the contents and understand it effectively. However providing an image would aid in grasping the contents effectfully. Under the recent findings section, most of the information is relevant though you should consider the biochemical aspect of it too. Current models need more researching. Try including more journal articles for current models maybe. Under historic findings, more detail is needed for the fetal lung development. Try to obtain more relevant articles on fetal lung development and integrate the information with your current information. Abnormalities are described well and are detailed so WELL DONE! Good use of images which makes it engaging and interesting. Although some images lack captions and few images are missing copyright. Try to include in text citations and put together all the references in the end of the page. Just fix up the references and in text citations also mention your sections of the page in the introduction and that’s it. LOOKS REALLY GOOD SO FAR just needs to fix few minor things.

You guys have a good contents list and cover the main topics under respiratory fetal development. However subheadings “Current Research, Models and Findings”, “Historic Findings” and “ Abnormalities” can be made into separate subsections, instead of under Lung Development Stages as 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and can be categorized as 3,4,5 on the contents list. This can be easily changed. Also one reference list at the end of the whole page for all the sections would be good. The introduction gives a good overview of respiratory development. It might be good if in the introduction it outlines the focuses of the page, in particular that you guys will be focusing on fetal development. There is a very good use of a table to describe lung development stages. The table and information provided shows good understanding of overall lung development. Possibly more information could be given on lung development and fetal development. Maybe the molecular pathways involved could be mentioned. Lung development diagrams would be even more useful in conveying the message. The Current Research, Models and Findings has good information. It is simple and clearly conveyed and easy to grasp. It was good that you guys discussed the current understanding of morphogenesis, with recent findings about FGF10 and FGFR2. Possibly these sort of molecular pathways involved could be discussed further as I would assume much research in that area would be happening. Possibly animal models and human models could be discussed in this topic. Historic findings is very comprehensive with diagrams and also a very good use of dot points in chronological order to describe the sequentially the historic findings in the context of respiratory development. The dot points are also easy to read and understand. The youtube link also under the references for historic findings is also a good tool for learning and explaining. The abnormalities section is very comprehensive with descriptions of many abnormalities. There could be more diagrams included as can be done well when describing abnormalities. It is a good opportunity to use diagrams and maybe putting images of abnormal vs normal lungs would be a good way to help teach at peer level the abnormalities that form. There is a good use of diagrams throughout the page. The first 2 diagrams of the lung histology could be explained or described a little further. For example if there is a difference and similarities between slides a, b,c or d in the first diagram. References and in text citations are done well. However the references for all the subsections could be kept in one References subsection at the end of the page. This would make navigating the page more easier. There are elements of teaching within the page. For example the table explaining the stages of development; dot point for historic findings; diagrams; youtube link on respiratory development. More teaching elements could be introduced with different explanations and more interesting examples. This could be nicely incorporated into the recent findings topic and abnormalities. But on the whole your page is really good and it is clear that much research has been done. If you keep going the way you guys are going it should turn out really good.

Good use of visual aids especially the table as the information is clearly visible, the labelled diagrams are very useful as you can visually see the information that has been written about in the text. Possibly put all of the references at the bottom of the page so they do not interrupt the factual text. The diagram of the schematic of lung disease and the lung models could be incorporated more into relevant text rather than being a stand along diagram so that the diagram can be used to enforce what has been said in the text.

The group has provided a well summarised introduction of the respiratory system including its main function and the main anatomical features of it (conducting zone, respiratory zone) explanation was easy to understand. They have also explained the two stages (embryonic and fetal) and explained one of the key events that occur in the fetal stage Not only that but there is further information of what happens after fetal stage as its’ development continuous postnatal. In addition there is diagram to help aid in visualising these anatomical features and how it looks as it develop, however there is no labels in the diagram and so readers are unable to understanding its significance nor visualise correctly. Some of the diagrams are randomly pasted into the site with no explanation or context.

There is good choice of subheading clearly stating what it will be talking about and the use of a table to illustrate the fetal stage in development of the respiratory system is well put. It makes it easy to understand and summarises the key fetal stage events, allowing reader to easily orientate at what time frame, a particular feature is developing into. Research findings are relevant to the topic and recent, having it in short paragraph helped in understanding what was found from the research articles however some of the findings seemed incomplete towards the end, a bit more information could be added and there is information about a proposed model under the recent research heading, this could be misleading to the reader. Historic finding is well written its clear, to the point and correct headings have been used. Good use of time dates (shows research) and historic drawings are simple and relevant to the information given besides them.

There is an adequate amount of abnormalities with main ones explaining who it affects and problems associated with it. One of the abnormality is not defined however rest shows research has been done and good use of image, shows it in real life context. Overall the project has shown research has been done especially in historic findings and abnormalities. Some of the information in the introduction has not been citied however the information that has been is correctly citied (including the pictures). To make it look neater I would suggest having reference as a 1 whole list at the bottom of the page. Good use of the table


--Z3333429 (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2014 (EST) Hey guys, it's Emanuel I've had a look into the systems and respiratory caught my interest. I wanted to do cardio but another group has already chosen it so I think we should choose a system ASAP.

Respiratory looks like it has plenty of resources and there are some interesting abnormalities gat I found on this page: Respiratory Abnormalities

Do you guys have any other systems you would like to do or do you like respiratory?

--Z3372817 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2014 (EST) Hey Emanuel, its Ish here.

As we said on the day, we're fine with anything. So if it's still free, let's lock it in before another group claims it?

--Z3333429 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (EST) Alright awesome, well I guess we're the Respiratory group. How do we let Dr Hill know?

--Z3330991 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2014 (EST) Hi guys, it's Nadine. I'm happy to do the respiratory system :) I'm sure we have to email him, I'll do that now, since we all seem to be on the same page and in agreement with the respiratory system.

--Z3330991 (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2014 (EST) Just emailed Dr Mark and put a heading "respiratory" on our group page :) Also we each need to pick one of the following;

  1. Review that system development during the fetal period.
  2. Identify current research models and finding.
  3. Identify historic findings.
  4. Identify abnormalities that can occur in this system during fetal period.

I'm happy to do number 1. Unless someone else wants to?

--Z3333429 (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (EST)Thanks Nadine, I'll do number 4 if that's all good with you guys?

--Z3372817 (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2014 (EST) Great work with allocating Nadine. I'd love to do the historic findings (number 3) that sounds interesting! Only if that's okay with you all though?

--Z3332339 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2014 (EST) Hey Guys! It's marina here :), I'm happy with number 2. If anyone comes across information for other parts of the project, let's let each other know :)

--Z3330991 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (EST)Hi guys its Nadine, just wanted to let you guys know that i added in subheadings to our page :) So feel free to add to your sections -pictures -articles -tables

--Z3332339 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2014 (EST)Marina: Thanks Nadine :) I'm just going to add our names next to each section that we are looking at so its easier to communicate with with one another and who's doing what :)

  1. Review that system development during the fetal period-Nadine
  2. Identify current research models and finding-Marina
  3. Identify historic findings-Ish
  4. Identify abnormalities that can occur in this system during fetal period-Emanuel

--Z3333429 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2014 (EST) Topics to cover

  1. Major stages of development - all fetal (only primordial embryonic development)
  2. Histological findings
  3. Separate into Functional elements (alveoli) and Tract (conducting system: upper and lower)
  4. Include diaphragm (musculoskeletal)
  5. Changes after birth

--Z3333429 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2014 (EST) Emanuel: Hey guys just letting you know that I spoke to Dr Hill before the lecture with Carl from the cardio group about using review articles. He said we are allowed to use them as long as we refer to them appropriately (e.g as reviewed in..., according to review by..., etc). He also said that any direct findings need to be referenced from the original article and not a review article. We can reference to them as mentioned above and we can also add a subheading under references titled "review articles" if we want. When we start to formulate the page we can look at what previous projects have done when organising their review article references for ideas. In regards to using images from review articles - there is no need to cite them as coming from review article.

--Z3333429 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2014 (EST) Emanuel: Hey guys just looking through the lecture and I noticed the part about the development of the pharynx. It develops with the foregut (oesophagus) of the GIT. What do you think if Nadine mentions that groups page in an appendix for her section to link the two pages? There is also a relationship between the development of the liver in wk7 that stops the descent of the heart and lungs so it could make our project more interesting in that it links out page with others offering a wider scope of information along with our specific topic.

--Z3332339 (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2014 (EST)Marina: Yeh I agree! I noticed that too Emanuel. The development of the oesophagus from the foregut and how it bifurcated from the common pharynx into the trachea is very much related to our topic. We can definitely include those relationships, and any others we come across

--Z3333429 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2014 (EST) Emanuel: Hey Ish, just came across these articles regarding historical findings for pulmonary surfactant:

Surfactants: past, preset and future.

The era of pulmonary surfactant from Laplace to nowadays

Mary Ellen Avery and Jere Mead seem to be the godparents of surfactant discovery. I also noticed that there is a little tool on the right hand side of the pubmed page when you search for articles called "Results by year". It's a little bar graph showing which years had the most articles and you can click on each year to bring up it's articles. This might be helpful if your looking for articles that sparked an increase in research by clicking on the years just before the spikes in articles.

--Z3372817 (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2014 (EST) That is just amazing Emanuel, thanks! Just another thing I wanted to ask, I noticed you took notes when Mark came by to talk to our group at the last lab. When he was saying to focus on things like.. Yeah, do you mind just typing up what you had written. That would be so helpful!

--Z3332339 (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2014 (EST)Marina: Hey guys, just uploaded an image onto our page. It's under current research because its something scientists are looking at the moment with tracking abnormalities. The picture compares the normal structure of a lung to a couple of diseased ones. I know this also links to other parts of our project so we can shift it around later if need be. Mark wanted a picture uploaded before tomorrow, so at least we have something up there for now :)

--Z3330991 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2014 (EST) Nadine here, just wanted to inform you that we have a new group assessment that will be marked individually we need to pick 2-3 research papers on stem biology and we need to summarize the paper and present it in week 12 as a group. You will get an email in regards to this set assignment, just thought I'd give you a head up.

--Z3333429 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (EST) Emanuel: This is for Ish, I found a link on the respiratory pages that should help you out. Just go to one of the pages (e.g Respiratory System - Abnormalities) and there is a 'Historic Embryology' link just after the introduction. It's small and in a blue box so click on it to expand. It has some really good links that will hopefully help you. Something else that was interesting was the disclaimer at the bottom of the links stressing that the content and scientific understanding are specific to the time of publication. You may want to ask Dr Hill if you need to include that at the bottom of the page to make sure that our audience does not get confused.

--Z3372817 (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2014 (EST) Ish: Yup, I've seen that Emanuel. I sort of wrote a paragraph along those lines as an introduction to my section which serves as a type of disclaimer too, but I'll reconfirm with Mark whether it's necessary to have anything in addition to that. Nadine, thanks for the heads up.

--Z3330991 (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (EST) Nadine: Hey guys, just wanted to remind you that by the end of this week all information should up for your section. Make sure that references are included, pictures if needed.

--Z3372817 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2014 (EST) Ish: Hey guys, anyone else having issues with the website lately? I'm trying to upload an image - can't. I completed my latest lab assessment a couple days ago and saved it - lost it. So just to be safe, once you've written everything you need down in your sections, copy and paste EVERYTHING into a separate word doc. Don't want you guys to lose hours of work like I did.

--Z3332339 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2014 (EST) Marina: Hey Ish yeh im also having trouble with it as well. Even the "uploading image" button is inactive for me, apparently others are having as few problems with this as well. Can you guys check if you yours is visible at the moment? I know this must be recent as you guys have uploaded images and i was able to before. Maybe it has to do with the website change Dr Mark was talking about.

--Z3330991 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2014 (EST) Nadine: Thanks Ish! i had the same problem happened twice to me! But it worked out for me in the end. So i have been looking around -projects from years before us and i really like this layout. Have a look if you get the chance [1]

--Z3332339 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2014 (EST) Marina: Hey Nardine, i really like that layout, hopefully we can get something similar to that going for us as well :) I'm sorry I havent been able to upload any images as the tab for me is unavailable, i emailed Dr mark about it though so hopefully that gets fixed soon.

--Z3332339 (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2014 (EST) Marina: I was thinking of adding a heading titled "Glossary" at the very end of our project for us to add any words we want to define.... what do you guys think of this?

--Z3330991 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2014 (EST) Nadine: Hey Marina, i like that idea heaps and i was also thinking of drawing for my section i found a great paper with fantastic pictures but i cant find the copyright information its off Nature, or I'll just figure something out

--Z3330991 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2014 (EST) Nadine: Hey I was thinking we need to get on top of the week 12 project maybe we can talk about this further tomorrow? I just dont want all of the good papers to go fast and we get left with really hard ones.

--Z3372817 (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2014 (EST) Guys I'm going to move my section to the top? I think historical information should chronologically be placed at the beginning. Is that ok?

--Z3372817 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2014 (EST) le gasp! I edited everyones parts to try and make it flow well by adding a sentence or two in the beginning. hope thats okay!!1!