Talk:2017 Group Project 3 - Revision history

Z8600021: /* Images General Notes */

2017-11-19T03:20:07Z

Images General Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 19 November 2017
Line 102:		Line 102:

	====Images General Notes====		====Images General Notes====
	*		* 18, 21, 22 and 23 (Z5059996) all seem to be from the same source?

	==Suggested Starting Places==		==Suggested Starting Places==

Z8600021: /* General */

2017-11-19T02:58:10Z

General

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:58, 19 November 2017
Line 19:		Line 19:
	** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.		** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.
	* Ref 12 - Excellet review article, but is extensively cited and original research articles could have been used for some of this content. Also text does not indicate "as review in/by" as appropriate.		** Ref 12 - Excellet review article, but is extensively cited and original research articles could have been used for some of this content. Also text does not indicate "as review in/by" as appropriate.
	* Ref 24 - "Dental hygienists in Switzerland" in German, this has to be the wrong reference link.		** Ref 24 - "Dental hygienists in Switzerland" in German, this has to be the wrong reference link.
			** Ref 72 and 73 - cover the same topic are both required on project page? Ref 72 is better (peer teaching).
	* Glossary - well structured.		* Glossary - well structured.
	** Not all terms included. For example why include only Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) when you cite many others rfactors and acronyms on the project page.		** Not all terms included. For example why include only Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) when you cite many others rfactors and acronyms on the project page.

Z8600021: /* General */

2017-11-19T02:56:13Z

General

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 19 November 2017
Line 20:		Line 20:
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.
	* Ref 12 - Excellet review article, but is extensively cited and original research articles could have been used for some of this content. Also text does not indicate "as review in/by" as appropriate.		* Ref 12 - Excellet review article, but is extensively cited and original research articles could have been used for some of this content. Also text does not indicate "as review in/by" as appropriate.
			* Ref 24 - "Dental hygienists in Switzerland" in German, this has to be the wrong reference link.
	* Glossary - well structured.		* Glossary - well structured.
	** Not all terms included. For example why include only Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) when you cite many others rfactors and acronyms on the project page.		** Not all terms included. For example why include only Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) when you cite many others rfactors and acronyms on the project page.

Z8600021: /* General */

2017-11-19T02:54:43Z

General

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 19 November 2017
Line 19:		Line 19:
	** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.		** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.
			* Ref 12 - Excellet review article, but is extensively cited and original research articles could have been used for some of this content. Also text does not indicate "as review in/by" as appropriate.
	* Glossary - well structured.		* Glossary - well structured.
	** Not all terms included. For example why include only Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) when you cite many others rfactors and acronyms on the project page.		** Not all terms included. For example why include only Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) when you cite many others rfactors and acronyms on the project page.

Z8600021: /* General */

2017-11-19T02:52:10Z

General

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:52, 19 November 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:
	** Where is the FGF and Notch diagrams?		** Where is the FGF and Notch diagrams?
	** Could have additionally linked factors to online databases, such as OMIM or PubMed (peer teaching).		** Could have additionally linked factors to online databases, such as OMIM or PubMed (peer teaching).
			* Animal Models - good coverage of this topic.
	* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.		* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
	** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.		** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.
			* Glossary - well structured.
			** Not all terms included. For example why include only Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) when you cite many others rfactors and acronyms on the project page.

	===Edits===		===Edits===

Z8600021: /* General */

2017-11-19T02:49:49Z

General

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 19 November 2017
Line 12:		Line 12:
	** Need to explain difference between FA and GA weeks, not clear from table.		** Need to explain difference between FA and GA weeks, not clear from table.
	** typo in section 5 - srtats for starts, check you project page.		** typo in section 5 - srtats for starts, check you project page.
			* Developmental Signalling Processes - well covered on this project page, in the detail I expect for current students. Inclusion of useful signalling images.
			** Where is the FGF and Notch diagrams?
			** Could have additionally linked factors to online databases, such as OMIM or PubMed (peer teaching).
	* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.		* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
	** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.		** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.



	===Edits===		===Edits===

Z8600021 at 02:46, 19 November 2017

2017-11-19T02:46:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:46, 19 November 2017
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* Developmental timeline table useful inclusion.		* Developmental timeline table useful inclusion.
	** Need to explain difference between FA and GA weeks, not clear from table.		** Need to explain difference between FA and GA weeks, not clear from table.
			** typo in section 5 - srtats for starts, check you project page.
	* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.		* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
	** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.		** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.

Z8600021 at 21:14, 16 November 2017

2017-11-16T21:14:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:14, 17 November 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:

	* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.		* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
			** Ref 2 - for "primary heart fields" not appropriate from this review article. Should have used a research article for this work.
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.

Z8600021 at 21:12, 16 November 2017

2017-11-16T21:12:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 17 November 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* Quite a lengthy project page, longer is not necessarily/always better, as students are generally looking for concise sources.		* Quite a lengthy project page, longer is not necessarily/always better, as students are generally looking for concise sources.
	* Reasonable balance of text and media.		* Reasonable balance of text and media.
			* Developmental timeline table useful inclusion.
			** Need to explain difference between FA and GA weeks, not clear from table.

	* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.		* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.

Z8600021 at 23:03, 15 November 2017

2017-11-15T23:03:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 16 November 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* Quite a lengthy project page, longer is not necessarily/always better, as students are generally looking for concise sources.		* Quite a lengthy project page, longer is not necessarily/always better, as students are generally looking for concise sources.
	* Reasonable balance of text and media.		* Reasonable balance of text and media.
	* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, some errors in list.		* Referencing - good coverage of literature and sources, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
	** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.		** Ref 9 and 11 - not formatted correctly, and are simple links. Something like [http://www.easybib.com/reference/guide/apa/website APA website citation style] could have been used here.



	===Edits===		===Edits===