Group 2 Feedback - Kidney --- I found the introduction to the kidney didn't flow very nicely and each sentence and paragraph were just points added in. Also, the grammar and punctuation in the introduction paragraph needs to be edited. The final thing that needs to be altered in the introduction paragraph is the links that have just been placed in. I'm not sure if they are the references but if so they need to be referenced correctly. The anatomical position and kidney structure are written really well! The only improvement I could make is with figure one and two reference them within the writing e.g. "Their inner structure can be divided into 2 main areas: the outer cortex, and the inner medulla, as illustrated in Figure 2", otherwise this section is really great. The timeline of the kidney embryology is good - basic outline which makes it easy to follow such a complex process. To make the page flow in a more succinct manner I think it would be good to put the kidney timeline under the kidney development heading instead of separating the two as the kidney development information expands on the timeline really well. The kidney development information is really good, and I think the images really complete it. However, the link at the end of nephrogenesis needs to be referenced correctly with intext. Also under blood supply, it says "THIS IS COPY AND PASTE" so I'm not sure if that's copied off another page or your own notes but that needs to be fixed. The abnormality section was really good and current research is a really interesting thing to include, that section just needs some more information which I'm sure you guys are already on top of! Overall its a really great page, good effort.
Group 3 Feedback - Heart --- The introduction was very good! I like how it introduced why the heart is so critical in early development, explained what you were going to discuss and where there would be gaps due to a lack of medical knowledge. The information in developmental origin and the developmental timeline is really great, however, I think you need to consider joining these two headings and not splitting them into one. You also state in developmental origin "as seen in figure two", however, none of your images have figure titles so I am not sure which figure you're actually referring to. The timeline is a good basic reference point, so I think it would be nice for it to be before the origin outline as it gives the basics which you then go into more detail about. I like that you put in the developmental signalling processes and then outlined each one of these, obviously the rest of those processes that have subheadings but no information just need to be finished. The current research is really interesting, again images just need a figure of some sort. The future questions section is a little confusing as I'm not sure if that's an area you're going to go into more depth over or if that's a future question you think research should look in to? So a clarification would be good. The glossary of terms is super helpful and all referencing looks good!
Group 4 Feedback - Eye Development --- 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!
Group 5 Feedback - Lungs --- I don't like that first sentence above Lung Anatomy below the Lung heading. I feel like it is just dumped there so maybe try expanding on this a little bit and making it more into an introduction. The information in the lung anatomy is really good, and that drawing is too! The only suggestion I would make here is instead of saying "this diagram", instead refer to it as Figure 1 and then label the image Figure 1. The lung histology information and picture again was really good, however same thing with reference to the image as I suggested for anatomy. Same thing with cardiovasculature reference to images. The timeline is really great, label your images as figures again though and then can have the little explanation. The brief summary above the timeline could look more structured if you placed it in a simple table.The rest of your information is good, however, some suggestions I would like to make to improve your page would be adding some videos in. These are always engaging and offer a different style of learning for people. A glossary of key terms could also benefit your page. Referencing overall looks good, however, there are a few errors in your referencing. Overall really great page though.
Group 6 Feedback - Cerebellum The introduction and the information above the introduction is really good, however, I think it would be better if you merged these into one as it sort of seems like two introductions and doesn't flow very nicely, even though what you're saying is really good. The basic anatomy was really good, especially with the images and the reference to them. The microanatomy information is good however would be better if you added images like you did in the anatomy. The cerebral nuclei table is good, however, I think its distracting the description in the centre, just have it normal and don't centre your text. Place the information about the primary and secondary brain vesicles above their images and then refer to the images. Some of your sections, for example, cell signalling or key historical developments, are really wordy and hard to keep a focus so maybe split them up with images, videos, or tables. The rest of the page looks really good, maybe just add some more information to the abnormalities as some are only a sentence or so. The page could also benefit from using a video or two. Referencing is good.