Talk:2017 Group Project 4

From Embryology
Student Projects: 1 Cerebral Cortex | 2 Kidney | 3 Heart | 4 Eye | 5 Lung | 6 Cerebellum
Student Page - here is the sample page I demonstrated with in the first labs.I remind all students that you have your own Group Forum on Moodle for your discussions, it is only accessible by members of your group.
Editing Links: Editing Basics | Images | Tables | Referencing | Journal Searches | Copyright | Font Colours | Virtual Slide Permalink | My Preferences | One Page Wiki Card | Printing | Movies | Language Translation | Student Movies | Using OpenOffice | Internet Browsers | Moodle | Navigation/Contribution | Term Link | Short URLs | 2018 Test Student


I have now added a discussion Forum for your group to Moodle. You can add your discussion here (available to everyone) or in your Moodle Group Discussion (available to only your group members).

The collapsible table below shows the assessment criteria that will be used for this group project.

Group Assessment Criteria  
Mark Hill.jpg Science Student Projects
  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.
More Information on Assessment Criteria | Science Student Projects
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.

Referencing 
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/>

Plagiarism 
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

"Plagiarism at UNSW is defined as using the words or ideas of others and passing them off as your own." (extract from UNSW statement on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism)

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.

About the Discussion Page

This should be considered as the "other side" of the project page. It is an area where you can:

  1. Assemble resources.
  2. Add useful links.
  3. Discuss your project with team members. (Please do not use student names on any page on this Wiki)
  4. Paste your Peer Assessments. (Added anonymously, do not identify yourself)


Assessment

General

  • 10 assessment criteria demonstrated with some exceptions.
  • Reasonable balance of text and media.
  • Anatomy of the Adult Eye is comprehensive (text) supported by images (student drawn)
    • this section seemed overlong within the context of the project and could have been explained with a few well labelled cartoon figures.
  • Development of the eye components does not cover vitreous chamber component.
  • No discussion of hyaloid blood vessels as transient structures.
  • Extraocular muscles descriptions only, not developmental information.
  • Timeline of embryonic development useful inclusion
    • very general, FA or GA weeks?
  • Carnegie Stages table was good inclusion and clearly organised.
    • why were so few examples if eyes at different embryonic stages included in the associated images.
  • YouTube video Development of the eye components was a good inclusion and good animation.
    • could have explained that it covered only early development features.
    • could have been larger on the page as the legends could not be easily read without opening as separate file.
  • Signalling pathways identified dsome important pathways
    • Signalling pathway images would have helped the educational value of this section.
    • Links to OMIM or other online databases would have been useful.
  • Extensive glossary.
    • Factor acronyms needed explaining in glossary.
  • Future questions identified at least 2 major eye issues (eye transplants, bionic eye)
    • Nothing about stem cells in this future research section?
  • Referencing - reasonable coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
    • Overuse of Larsen and Gilbert as primary sources for information.
    • Ref 7 - textbook , not appropriate reference for hyaloid blood vessels.
    • Ref 39 - online web page should be cited in perhaps APA style rather than just a web link.

Edits

Total - 399

  • Z5177670 - 204
  • Z5117343 - 71
  • Z5075778 - 68
  • Z5075309 - 29
  • Z3416557 - 27

Edit History Note

  • Both the Project and Discussion pages are now locked and cannot be edited. Please email me if you have additional comments or edits concerning the project and individual contributions.
  • This edit analysis is not a quantitation of individual student overall contribution, but is used to identify low contribution students and the ongoing contribution component.
  • Group Edit Comparison - Group 1 (855) Group 2 (452) Group 3 (583) Group 4 (399) Group 5 (381) Group 6 (604)

Images


  • z5177670 has added figure 4 and 6 and the figures in the Carnegie Stages section. These are taken from Mark HIll's wiki pages.
  • z5075778 has added images of the lens, cornea, eyelids and extraocular muscles (under their corresponding headings) also taken from MH's wiki pages.
  • Z5117343 has used images (File:Opac figure 7.jpg, File:Opac figure 10.jpg) for Iris Coloboma and and iridia that are "© 2015 American Academy of Ophthalmology" no additional reference or copyright information included. These have been deleted for copyright.

Images General Notes

  • Large number of UNSW images in project. This was allowed, but suggests that you have not attempted to source material from the research literature. Examples of searches were provided to all students in the links at the beginning of the semester (see Suggested Starting Places)
    • Search PubMed Central eye development | eye embryology while all these results are not necessarily available for reuse, it was a starting strategy.

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

Mark Hill (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2017 (AEST) OK Group 4 below are some starting places.

Vision Links: vision | lens | retina | placode | extraocular muscle | cornea | eyelid | vision abnormalities | Student project 1 | Student project 2 | Category:Vision | sensory
Historic Vision 
Historic Embryology: 1906 Eye Embryology | 1907 Development Atlas | 1912 Eye Development | 1912 Nasolacrimal Duct | 1918 Grays Anatomy | 1921 Eye Development | 1922 Optic Primordia | 1925 Eyeball and optic nerve | 1925 Iris | 1927 Oculomotor | 1928 Human Retina | 1928 Retina | 1928 Hyaloid Canal | Historic Disclaimer

PubMed Searches: Eye Development | Vision Development

BMC Dev Biol Search: Eye Development

Recent papers

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


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!

---

  • The page has an overall good structure, was very easy to follow and has 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 (Carnegie Stages 21 and 22). It would be a good idea to start creating the glossary so you can define difficult words such as “collagenIX" and "tenasin-C".
  • The Anatomy of the Adult Eye was short, concise and quite informative. Perhaps the images need to be redrawn since the layers were hard to distinguish, and they need to be labelled with “taken from…”.
  • The use of tables were very helpful and makes the content easier to understand. The table on Carnegie Stages was very informative, however it would be better to insert some images to visually aid the readers. Also, this table seems to be missing references.
  • Congenital anomalies section is a very important part of the topic, and I feel that it lacks information. Instead of putting it in a table perhaps it would be better give each anomaly their own subheading, and from there you can elaborate on it more.
  • Although references were done correctly, a lot of sections 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.

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.

---

- An introduction should be added rather than jumping straight into content. First thing I noticed was that your diagrams don't have any captions are anything, it's a bit hard to fit them in with the information you've presented without any appropriate labelling. Anatomy section well done though, very detailed and uses easy to understand language, just lacks references. - Embryological development timeline table is really brief, I think you should state what is happening in the development descriptions rather than just listing the part of the eye. The Carnegie Stages table was really good though, it was easy to understand what was happening because there was extra descriptions and it wasn't too descriptive that it became overwhelming so good work on that. Unfinished, but looks good anyway and looks like you know what's happening. - I like the embryonic contributions table and am glad you just put it as a table and nothing else. - Short overview section really well done. Language is easy to understand which means that it wasn't too overwhelming to read despite there being quite a big chunk of text. I just feel like this overview is in the wrong place? it just didn't flow to me. Good referencing and picture + labels - Development of eye components is unfinished, but what's there is good and well researched as evidenced by your references. When completing, I would suggest diagrams and/or videos so people can visualise the processes because you've listed quite a few components and just leaving it as text would be a bit much to take in. It looks like you have good direction for this though, so good job on that. - Congenital abnormalities. This is probably my favourite section of yours because I hadn't really considered using a table to summarise abnormalities. I think your table is really easy to understand and is nice and concise (I've often found the abnormalities sections overwhelming) so thanks for that! The figures at the end are appropriate and useful. Very impressed by the section.

Overall this has been one of the better projects to me because you've used appropriate language and have a great use of tables to summarise your research. I didn't feel very overwhelmed by your information because it was well written and concise. I would suggest adding an introduction to give readers an overview of your project, and perhaps revising the order of the first half of the project because it seems a bit disjointed to me. Nothing wrong with your content, just doesn't flow to me.

It's clear that you haven't finished, but I think you are on the right track and am looking forward to seeing the finished product. Well done so far.


  • Anatomy of the adult eye
    • Good explanation on the anatomy of adult eyes.
    • Self-drawn images are also clear and easy to understand.
  • Overview of eye development
    • Detailed layout of eye development with the use of tables.
    • Some references are missing.
  • Development of the eye components
    • Labeled images should be included.
    • Although some contents are missing, it is clear that the author has a clear grasp of what to include.
  • References
    • The group may want to decide on one style of referencing for eg. APA or BJP.

Group 4- Eye

Regarding content:
The material is provided in a concise way, which demonstrates the ability to consolidate large volumes of information accordingly. Furthermore, various tables have been used which helps the reader to understand the more simply. The organization is also improved. Many topics have been addressed that are all relevant to the topic. Headings and subheadings have been added properly also. However, the information is too brief. There could have been a clear introduction. Current research that is being done on the topic is not covered, nor the developmental signaling process. Abnormalities could have been dealt with better also. Glossary could have been added also for greater clarity of key terms.

Referencing and Research:
A proper reference list has been provided in the done which has been correctly written. Throughout the project also, references have been added in the most part. The images have been correctly cited also. There has been research effort with reliable sources being used, many being peer-reviewed. It is notable however that while citing information, references are missing under some sections. Furthermore, the research needs to be more extensive.

Other Comments:
Various hand drawn diagrams have been used which reflect the effort and understanding of the topic. The development timeline is also commendable. The diagrams have however not been labeled correctly, such as under Anterior Structure.