|2017 Project Groups|
|Group 1||Group 2||Group 3||Group 4||Group 5||Group 6|
|Mark Hill - Lab 1 page|
Peer review project 1:
I have some general comments which applies to almost all of the sections in the project:
- The referencing is not proper. A lot of the sections do not have reference or all of the reference are at the bottom of the section.
- Some of the sections have bullet points instead of text. It feels like you are reading somebodies notes not a project.
- It would be nice with more pictures to get a better understanding. The pictures there are good, but it does not have any caption. The size is to big as well for some of the pictures (the drawing with the mouse and human model)
- The project does not have a current research, future questions section or animal, which is a requirement for the project.
- I think it would be better for the project if the anatomy and function sections stood before the development part. It would give a better understanding or at least I think so.
- In general, I don’t feel like the project is connected, and expressions like cortigenesis and neurogenesis is not defined.
- I really think the timeline is nice. But a lot of the text within the timeline would have been more appropriate to write in the cortex development section. It should contain some key discoveries instead. But the text there is good, makes sense to me and is well written.
- In the early development of the brain section I don’t understand some of the sentence like: “From there three primary vesicles, there is a further division at the anterior extremity of the medullary canal into five secondary vesicles during week five. These are fundamental divisions of the adult brain and communicate freely with each other”. Some of it should properly be rephrased.
- There are some repetions during the project. The text could be compromised.
- In general, the language is neutral and written in a good scientific way.
Peer review project 3:
Some general comments to the project:
- The project contained both developmental origin, timeline, signalling processes, current research and findings, animals model and abnormal development sections. The project therefore has all the sections which were a requirement for the project.
- Overall, I think the project was good. It was well written, easy to understand as a student, the sections correlated well and the context was good. I especially liked the signalling section, even though some context is missing. I think the idea of adding a treatment part to project is a good but I could not find it in the project. As mentioned some context is missing, which is the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog and retinoic acid sections.
- The project has a good introduction. You have a clear idea of what you are about to read, which is nice.
- The layout could be a lot better, I think the picture location could be adjusted. In the developmental origin part, the pictures make the section look very confusing. Some of the subheadings, like the abnormal development is pushed to side by the pictures, so when you scroll down the project you miss it.
- In general, the pictures miss their caption, sources and number. Therefore, you do not know which picture there is referred to when you are reading the project. I miss some more pictures in the developmental sections. Some of the home made drawing is not very descriptive
- In the developmental origin section I think the last sentence is very long. You get so much information in one sentence that you sometimes forget what you just read.
- The timeline is easy to read and understand. Could contain some key discoveries.
- Thought the glossary of terms is a nice addition to the project.
- Overall the referencing is good, but in some sections like primary heart field and heart tube formation, the referencing is missing. In some sections the articles/or links are at the bottom of the section, which makes it a little confusing.
- I don’t feel like the primary heart field and heart tube formation correlates very well with the secondary heart field and cardiac looping section. When I start reading the latter I feel like I am starting on something completely new instead of continuing reading on the heart developing. I get the feeling I am reading two different persons work, and some work should be put into these sections to make it feel more fluent.
- An idea for your project could be that you add a short anatomy section after the introduction, so the reader gets a picture and an overview of how the heart is structured. Then it is easier to understand the developing of the heart when you know how the heart is going to end up looking like.
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.
Peer review project 5
- The project contained both developmental origin, timeline, signalling processes, current research and findings, animals model and abnormal development sections. The project therefore has all the sections which were a requirement for the project. But when you read the developmental origin section it does not say which germ layer it comes from. That is written in another section which I find confusing.
- Good idea drawing your own pictures, but because it is done with a pencil it is difficult to see what’s written on the picture.
- I like the anatomy introduction to the lungs – but I don’t see how the histology part is relevant to the project
- The abnormal development section was well-written and seemed like the group had done their research
- The current research section is still empty
- I liked the development timeline with the historical discoveries. But I think the development is the key stone of the project and therefore it would be nice if it had is own section instead of being the table. But the context itself was good
- I think the conducting system section is good and I like how you referred to the signalling processes which is also well described.
- Some sections still need referencing
- I liked that you included videos in your project
Peer review project 6:
- Overall the project was good and had both a abnormalities, animal model, timeline, signalling and development origin section. It does not have a current research and question for the future section.
- I like the timeline. It was nice and easy to read and gave a good overview over the developmental process. I like the use of embryonic pictures. Maybe instead of having a key historical discoveries section it could be integrated in the timeline?
- Good selection of pictures and the picture have caption. But the caption does not following the protocol.
- The abnormalities could have more context to it.
- I think it would improve the project if the timeline where before the developing process because then you read the table, get an idea about what is going to happen and then you can read the steps in detail. The developing process section could use some more breaks and pictures to make it look a little less dense.
- In general, good referencing but some sections like purkinje/pyramidal cells miss their reference.
- The anatomy section was good and informative
Here is the Student Page demonstration page I showed in the Practical class.
Use this page to practice editing and don't forget to add a topic to the 2017 Group Project 2 page.
Chicken embryo E-cadherin and P-cadherin in gastrulation