From Embryology
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

Project Peer Assessment

I forgot to post my assessments for each project on my own student page after doing them on October 7th even though I put them on each individual project page. I apologize, and I hope that my grade it not affected.

Mark Hill (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2018 (AEDT) No this will not affect your assessment, thank you for now adding your reviews. These Project peer assessments include both positive and negative feedback items. These are useful for the improvement of these projects.

Project 4: Cardiac Assessment In general, this project includes a significant amount of appropriate and well written information, but I believe that this information could be delivered more clearly with some formatting and organizational changes.

For the introduction, I thought that the inclusion of the sentence about Wilhelm His was somewhat out of place. If you want to discuss the history of neural crest and cardiac neural crest, I believe that it would be more impactful and flow better in its own section with more information included, for example, when and how cardiac neural crest cells specifically were first discovered and documented in research. I thought your timeline and video in this section were both appropriate and smart choices for conveying information, but the headings in these sections were inconsistent with the rest of the project. It was the only section where you separated information by unbolded italics. Also, it might be helpful for readers to have a little description under the video to let them know who made it, what the video will be demonstrating, and why its relevant to the project, since currently the only information we get about the video is the title "Heart embryology video". Overall though, I really like the concept of how you introduced your topic.

For the Cardiac Neural Crest cells section, there are a few minor errors that I will point out, since this section is very informative and well organized for the most part and I think the information is strong. As for minor formatting errors, you need to stay consistent with capitalization, since you state "Cardiac neural crest cells" in one part of the paragraph and "Cardiac neural Cells" before you list what they can develop into. Furthermore, in that list, you include "provide signals required for..." which doesn't really fit the description of that list, which includes mostly structures.

I really like how you separated Early Development and Later Development. It made understanding the developmental process much more straightforward and clear. Even in each of these separate sections, you further specified each specific event that occurs in that timeframe, which was a great organizational choice. My one suggestion for the Early Development section is that you have a list dedicated to signaling factors, but then later on in the page you include a "Signaling Molecules" section. I think it would work well to have a consistent method of organizing how you define and describe each factor/molecule if you aren't going to do it specifically within the paragraph itself. Specifically within the Later Development section, your information is well formatted, but there still are some links present on the page directly to a website rather than in the correct citation format in the reference section. Furthermore, in the "Formation of the Cardiac Ganglia" section, there is one giant quote that forms almost all of the information in that section, which should be broken up.

In the Human Congenital Heart Disease section, there seems to be a lot of editing that still needs to be done and links that need to be removed. Also, I feel like the CHARGE Syndrome section has a much different informational makeup and style than the other disease sections that are discussed. For instance, it includes statistics while other sections don't, and the link between NCC and this syndrome is not made as clear as in the other sections.

A significant amount of information, subheadings, and pictures still needs to be added to Animal Models and Research section.

Project 3: Melanocytes Assessment Overall I think your project is in good shape. Your formatting is consistent and appropriate, you included a significant amount depth and detail in your information, and you included many helpful diagrams and pictures with information that benefited from clarification. I do not have as much feedback for your group though since even though the current information that is present is great, there are still many sections that lack information or require more detail.

For your introduction, it seems almost like you tried to put your entire project into that one section. You repeat a lot of the information that you presented briefly in your introduction later in other sections. Even though I don't think including information that you are going to discuss in more detail later in the introduction is necessarily a poor choice, I do think that in its current state it seems a little jumbled and there's too much information packed into one paragraph.

Your Tissue/Organ Structure section is well formatted for your information, but some of your pictures don't have correctly formatted descriptions. Furthermore, there is a clear disparity in how much information you include in each of the sections, specifically I think the heart section needs at least a paragraph of information in order for it to match the strength of the other sections. I liked how you continued this formatting style of separating each structure under the Abnormalities section.

The Embryonic Origins section is currently very basic, but it sounds like the right information is currently there, but more detail and subheadings are required in order to convey it.

There is no information under Development Time Course or Molecular Mechanisms/ Factors/ Genes sections, so I cannot give any feedback.

Your Animal Model section seems to include a lot of important and detailed information, but I do think some more information about the fish model needs to be included since currently there is only a picture of a fish without any clarification.

In your Current Research section, you discuss a few important developing methods of research on melanocytes, but I think it would help readers understand these methods more readily if you included specific examples of research studies that employ these methods and what results they found.

Project 1: Adrenal Medulla Your project includes a lot of information and carefully chosen pictures and diagrams, but I think that more research needs to be conducted to extend the Reference list and to add more information to sections that are currently lacking.

I am a little confused as to whether you are going to include a separate introduction paragraph, or if the history portion is where you want the reader to begin reading from. I think there needs to be some format editing to clarify this distinction. In regards to you history section, you include so much detailed information, but I believe that there is too much information that is irrelevant towards your specific topic. Even though its well organized and you share a lot of detail about the research history of neural crest, this section seems to be taking up a lot of space in your project. Even though you do mention adrenal medulla in your history section, it is not the focus and is only mentioned very briefly. Specific historical research that is directly about neural crest cell contribution directly to the adrenal medulla seems to be absent, but it should be the focal point.

In regards to the Embryonic Origins section, there is currently only a link in one of the sections which needs to be replaced. Also, I think you include a lot of detail in the Developmental Time Course section, but it might be more clear to format that information as a timeline. As another formatting suggestion, if you are going to include a numbered list in your Tissue/Organ Structure, I don't think that it should be included directly in the paragraph.

Your Molecular Mechanisms/Factors/Genes section and Animal Models section seem to both have relevant and appropriate information in them, but I believe that some subsections in them, such as Gene and Transcription Factors involved with Adrenal Medulla Development, need more information considering how integral these factor are to understanding how neural crest cells form the Adrenal Medulla. I think also the animal models section would benefit from a few subheadings, since it seems like there is a lot of information there but it is currently a little hard to follow. In both of these two sections though, I really enjoy the colorful image choices!

There are still some links scattered throughout your page that aren't included in the reference section, and some of the sections still do not have any information under them.


PMID: 30056110

Walls ML & Hart RJ. (2018). In vitro maturation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol , , . PMID: 30056110 DOI.

In vitro maturation recent article [1]

Neuropore cell shape changes.png

Neuropore cell shape changes[2]

  1. Walls ML & Hart RJ. (2018). In vitro maturation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol , , . PMID: 30056110 DOI.
  2. Shinotsuka N, Yamaguchi Y, Nakazato K, Matsumoto Y, Mochizuki A & Miura M. (2018). Caspases and matrix metalloproteases facilitate collective behavior of non-neural ectoderm after hindbrain neuropore closure. BMC Dev. Biol. , 18, 17. PMID: 30064364 DOI.