|2017 Project Groups|
|Group 1||Group 2||Group 3||Group 4||Group 5||Group 6|
|Mark Hill - Lab 1 page|
Peer Review Assessment
Group 1 - Cortex
The introduction was a good opening to the Cortex page as it gives a brief overview and understanding of the cortex generally. The next subheading, “Early development of the Brain”, provides of a simple and clear explanation of the early development process however images would be a great addition to help visualise the text. Try having a look at some images that were shown to us in previous lectures on the brain development where it showed the neural plate, neuroectoderm and subsequent developments.
The next subheading, “Development of Cerebral Cortex”, would probably do better to be called “Later Development of Cerebral Cortex” as it would be a seamless flow from the previous subheading of “Early development…”. It was good that a labelled image was used and information was added for explanation. It helped orient me as I was going on to read about the timeline of corticogenesis. The timeline was detailed and the use of bold helped highlight key terms. However, I would suggest making another column for images on each day. Visual reinforcement just makes the information easier to absorb and make more sense.
The subheading, “Anatomy of the Cerebral Cortex”, is clearly in the editing process. I would just once again definitely recommend the use of images in this section, both hand-drawn diagrams and labelled images from the internet. I thought the use of a video was a clever way to cover the cerebral cortex functions. A bit of general text that briefly covers the functions of the main parts would be a good addition in this section, as a segue into the video.
The “Abnormalities” subheading was a good balance of text and images. It was easier to read because it was split into categories. I would only suggest that you mention at the beginning of the section that abnormalities associated with the cerebral cortex development can be divided into the following categories… I can see the references were placed at the beginning of the section and I’m assuming that is temporary. It is better if they are dispersed within the text where appropriate. There are a good bunch of references but you could probably aim for 25-30 for this page.
Group 2 - Kidney
The introduction was a clear overview of the kidney, its main parts and its role. The connection to embryological development is great because it ties in with the rest of the page. The only note here is that the references need to be properly referenced, not just pasted with the link. The anatomical position and kidney structure parts were good because there wasn’t too much text and it only served to complement the diagrams. This is a good section to put before kidney embryology as we can understand what is developing as the embryo grows.
The timeline of kidney embryology was very brief. This is not bad considering you go into kidney development in more detail in the next section. However, I think another column for images would be worthwhile for the reader to visualise each stage or week of development. Again, there are a few referencing errors that I’m sure you’ll rectify soon. There is a good use of references in nephron development. You’ve also clearly noted the copy and paste of the blood supply section. For this part, I would strongly recommend some diagrams because vasculature can be quite complicated to understand with just text.
The subheading, “Developmental abnormalities”, had a good chunk of research at the beginning that gave an overview of types of abnormalities before exploring three in detail. There was also a good amount of referencing. Clearly, the current research subheading is underdeveloped but there seems to be many articles that you will explore.
The reference list will be more reflective of your research once you fix some of those referencing errors.
Group 3 – Heart
The introduction is a brief and clear overview of the page. I liked how you acknowledged what your page will explore about the heart development. The “Developmental origin” subheading had good information and good diagrams in addition. However, I would adjust your layout a bit in this section so that the diagrams don’t look so awkward. You could do this by breaking down that second paragraph. The timeline provided a brief overview but I would also suggest adding another column for images. There is also a spelling error on week 5 – it says “srtats” where it should be “starts”.
As you go into “primary heart field and heart tube formation”, “secondary heart field and cardiac looping” and the next few sections, the references appear at the bottom of the sections. You should fix this so that they only appear in the reference list at the end. You could also probably bold “heart tube fusion”, “heart looping” and other terms in your developmental timeline since you explore them in depth.
The “developmental signalling process” subheading is very detailed. Since you also have a few more parts to complete into this section, it might be better to try to minimise some of the text. Your inclusion of current research is good and unique as you explore one paper in depth. However, I would suggest that you find another one or two. The “animal models” subheading should probably have a diagram or two of the referenced research papers if possible. Again with “abnormal development” subheading I would suggest some more images to see what these defects look like and possibly cutting down some text. In “future questions” you might also be able to provide a possible direction research might take to potentially answer this question. Also, you had a very good, long list of references.
Group 4 – Eye
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.
Group 6 – Cerebellum
There is a good introduction into the cerebellum which is also connected to the page and what the page will explore. The “basic anatomy” subheading is nice and succinct with minimal text and clear diagrams that clearly represent the anatomy of the cerebellum. The “Vasculature” subheading also provides a good overview with a simple diagram to complement. The only thing I find a bit odd about all the subheadings under “basic anatomy” is that I feel as though we go from the adult human anatomy of the cerebellum into embryological anatomy of the cerebellum. I think it might serve you better to split these up or just rearrange/rename your subheadings a bit. The reason for this is because the cerebellum is quite complex so I think it would help to absorb the information.
The “cerebellum development” is a good and descriptive subheading with a good use of diagrams. Since there is quite a big chunk of text, it would probably be better if you broke it down where you could. So, for example, where you say: “there are two types of grey matter in the cerebellum…” you could easily use dot points. It just helps with readability.
The “cellular migration” subheading is very good and the diagram you found is a great representation of it. I like that you added images to complement each week of development in your first trimester timeline. If you can do the same for your second trimester timeline that would be great. Your “key historical discoveries” subheading could use some images (even if it is of the people who made the discoveries). You chose a good number of abnormalities to explore in that last section. You might want to add another section for “future questions” just to hint at what more we need to learn about cerebellum development. You have a solid, long list of references.
Chicken embryo E-cadherin and P-cadherin in gastrulation
|Below are shown some easy methods, with examples, for setting up simple searches of PubMed and other Journal databases. In most cases, you simply need to replace the existing term (embryo) where it appears in Wiki code with your own. Note there may also be additional "Advanced search" options available within these sites.