User:Z5018962 - Revision history

Z5018962: /* Peer Review */

2017-10-12T03:33:38Z

Peer Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 12 October 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:
	'''Group 5''' Introduction could be longer, briefly introduce what you are going to discuss in this project page. The drawings are nice but could have been better if they were darker and coloured. In the glossary section, everyone do this as you go with your part as there are lots of technical terms. With those pictures included on the page, give them a name e.g. Figure 1, figure 2 etc. and then state them in the text where you would like the readers to see. As seen in the lung cardiovasculature and lung history section, it starts off with “this diagram”, the diagram should be indicated for example: Figure 1 shows…, or the diagram (figure 1) on the right shows … etc. The lung history and structure of respiratory network section are not referenced. The developmental timeline is well presented with both text and images, well referenced, and constructed nicely in the table. In the current understanding, summaries of journal articles and their findings would be beneficial. With animal models, it needs to be referenced and include a few figures. Image showing each of the abnormality in development is a bonus as well. In the other hand, the texts in the abnormal section are nice written, easy to understand and referenced well which show a lot of researches have put into this.		'''Group 5''' Introduction could be longer, briefly introduce what you are going to discuss in this project page. The drawings are nice but could have been better if they were darker and coloured. In the glossary section, everyone do this as you go with your part as there are lots of technical terms. With those pictures included on the page, give them a name e.g. Figure 1, figure 2 etc. and then state them in the text where you would like the readers to see. As seen in the lung cardiovasculature and lung history section, it starts off with “this diagram”, the diagram should be indicated for example: Figure 1 shows…, or the diagram (figure 1) on the right shows … etc. The lung history and structure of respiratory network section are not referenced. The developmental timeline is well presented with both text and images, well referenced, and constructed nicely in the table. In the current understanding, summaries of journal articles and their findings would be beneficial. With animal models, it needs to be referenced and include a few figures. Image showing each of the abnormality in development is a bonus as well. In the other hand, the texts in the abnormal section are nice written, easy to understand and referenced well which show a lot of researches have put into this.

			'''Group 6'''
			This page starts off nicely with a brief introduction. The page looks almost completed with well written texts and diagrams, are referenced thoroughly but inconsistent in some part in the cerebellum development week 3 – 6 . They have covered most of the requirements, just the current research and findings are missing, would be beneficial if you include them. The abnormality section has good amount of texts and pictures for each one, mention a few more of abnormalities if available. The animal model lacks images. References found in the reference list found inconsistent and not in style (2 – 5, 10 – 13, 17, 18, 30 – 32) , 47 and 48 duplicated. Include glossary terms in the glossary section. In the early brain vesicle and abnormalities section, diagram’s description should be put in the file link under “alt text” so that they appears underneath their images instead doing it separately, this includes figure 6.

	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962: /* Peer Review */

2017-10-12T01:25:37Z

Peer Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 12 October 2017
Line 7:		Line 7:

	'''Group 2''' This page presents nicely and very easy to read. In the introduction section, instead of pasting those references, put them in pubmed reference properly so they can be put automatically into the references. They have introduced good and enough information on the anatomy of the kidney. It was not fully referenced in the kidney development section but it was well written in this section with informative pictures and figures. It could be easier to direct the text to its picture accordingly. The timeline would be more beneficial if pictures were included. Nice and shot subheadings. In the abnormalities section, brief paragraphs with well-referenced starting off nicely. Pictures and texts are presented fairly good and are easy to see without a mess, but some of the terms were hard to understand e.g."when the left and right kidneys fuse at their lower poles by a '''parenchymal isthmus''' located ventral to the abdominal aorta, forming a "U" shape", maybe have a glossary section at the end of the page. A lot of references in this section is a bonus indicating it was researched well. In the current research section, majority is a list of article links which I assume they are not yet touched on at this state, which is ok. But make sure to have 2-3 journal articles in this section. A few of future question along the way if you have any would be great. Overall, it is a nice written page, looking forward to see this as a whole!		'''Group 2''' This page presents nicely and very easy to read. In the introduction section, instead of pasting those references, put them in pubmed reference properly so they can be put automatically into the references. They have introduced good and enough information on the anatomy of the kidney. It was not fully referenced in the kidney development section but it was well written in this section with informative pictures and figures. It could be easier to direct the text to its picture accordingly. The timeline would be more beneficial if pictures were included. Nice and shot subheadings. In the abnormalities section, brief paragraphs with well-referenced starting off nicely. Pictures and texts are presented fairly good and are easy to see without a mess, but some of the terms were hard to understand e.g."when the left and right kidneys fuse at their lower poles by a '''parenchymal isthmus''' located ventral to the abdominal aorta, forming a "U" shape", maybe have a glossary section at the end of the page. A lot of references in this section is a bonus indicating it was researched well. In the current research section, majority is a list of article links which I assume they are not yet touched on at this state, which is ok. But make sure to have 2-3 journal articles in this section. A few of future question along the way if you have any would be great. Overall, it is a nice written page, looking forward to see this as a whole!

			'''Group 4''' Introduction section is missing. It is better to start off introducing what you are going to discuss about briefly. The developmental timeline is informative. Developmental signaling pathway of the eye is missing. Would be beneficial if a brief mechanism is discussed. In each part of the eye development, consider putting labeled pictures for readers to navigate back to see where and what they are looking at, as there are many structures written in the text. Also, start building the glossary terms as you go. Some of the subheadings under this section are not done; I assume they will be later. With the congenital anomalies, i think it should be congenital abnormalities. Tackle some details for each of the abnormalities, mention the causes, how it happens, how common it is in Australia, briefly touch on how severe it is and how to treat them if possible, what are the underlying mechanism for this. This section needs a lot more information. Current research and animal model subheadings are not seen, should have this in the project. It is essential to include 2-3 current research journals on the eyes.


			'''Group 5''' Introduction could be longer, briefly introduce what you are going to discuss in this project page. The drawings are nice but could have been better if they were darker and coloured. In the glossary section, everyone do this as you go with your part as there are lots of technical terms. With those pictures included on the page, give them a name e.g. Figure 1, figure 2 etc. and then state them in the text where you would like the readers to see. As seen in the lung cardiovasculature and lung history section, it starts off with “this diagram”, the diagram should be indicated for example: Figure 1 shows…, or the diagram (figure 1) on the right shows … etc. The lung history and structure of respiratory network section are not referenced. The developmental timeline is well presented with both text and images, well referenced, and constructed nicely in the table. In the current understanding, summaries of journal articles and their findings would be beneficial. With animal models, it needs to be referenced and include a few figures. Image showing each of the abnormality in development is a bonus as well. In the other hand, the texts in the abnormal section are nice written, easy to understand and referenced well which show a lot of researches have put into this.


	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962: /* Peer Review */

2017-10-10T10:41:49Z

Peer Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 10 October 2017
Line 6:		Line 6:
	In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches, animal model if any and future questions as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.		In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches, animal model if any and future questions as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.

	'''Group 2''' This page presents nicely and very easy to read. In the introduction section, instead of ~~putting~~ those ~~website links~~, put them in ~~<ref></ref>~~ so they can be put automatically into the references. They have introduced good and enough information on the anatomy of the kidney. It was not fully referenced in the kidney development section but it was well written in this section with informative pictures and figures. It could be easier to direct the text to its picture accordingly. Nice and shot subheadings. In the abnormalities, brief paragraphs with well-referenced starting off nicely. Pictures and texts are presented ~~nicely in this section~~ and are easy to see ~~and read~~ without a mess. In the current research section, majority is a list of article links which I assume they are not yet touched on at this state, which is ok. But make sure to have 2-3 journal articles in this section. A few of future question along the way if you have any would be great. Overall, it is a nice written page, looking forward to see this as a whole!		'''Group 2''' This page presents nicely and very easy to read. In the introduction section, instead of pasting those references, put them in pubmed reference properly so they can be put automatically into the references. They have introduced good and enough information on the anatomy of the kidney. It was not fully referenced in the kidney development section but it was well written in this section with informative pictures and figures. It could be easier to direct the text to its picture accordingly. The timeline would be more beneficial if pictures were included. Nice and shot subheadings. In the abnormalities section, brief paragraphs with well-referenced starting off nicely. Pictures and texts are presented fairly good and are easy to see without a mess, but some of the terms were hard to understand e.g."when the left and right kidneys fuse at their lower poles by a '''parenchymal isthmus''' located ventral to the abdominal aorta, forming a "U" shape", maybe have a glossary section at the end of the page. A lot of references in this section is a bonus indicating it was researched well. In the current research section, majority is a list of article links which I assume they are not yet touched on at this state, which is ok. But make sure to have 2-3 journal articles in this section. A few of future question along the way if you have any would be great. Overall, it is a nice written page, looking forward to see this as a whole!

	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962: /* Peer Review */

2017-10-10T10:30:56Z

Peer Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 10 October 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	'''Group 1'''		'''Group 1'''
	In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches, animal model if any and future questions as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.		In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches, animal model if any and future questions as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.

			'''Group 2''' This page presents nicely and very easy to read. In the introduction section, instead of putting those website links, put them in <ref></ref> so they can be put automatically into the references. They have introduced good and enough information on the anatomy of the kidney. It was not fully referenced in the kidney development section but it was well written in this section with informative pictures and figures. It could be easier to direct the text to its picture accordingly. Nice and shot subheadings. In the abnormalities, brief paragraphs with well-referenced starting off nicely. Pictures and texts are presented nicely in this section and are easy to see and read without a mess. In the current research section, majority is a list of article links which I assume they are not yet touched on at this state, which is ok. But make sure to have 2-3 journal articles in this section. A few of future question along the way if you have any would be great. Overall, it is a nice written page, looking forward to see this as a whole!

	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962: /* Peer Review */

2017-10-10T07:33:02Z

Peer Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, 10 October 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:

	'''Group 1'''		'''Group 1'''
	In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches ~~and~~ animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.		In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches, animal model if any and future questions as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.

	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962: /* Peer Review */

2017-10-10T07:29:28Z

Peer Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 10 October 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Peer Review==		==Peer Review==

	Group 1		'''Group 1'''
	In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.		In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.

	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962 at 07:29, 10 October 2017

2017-10-10T07:29:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 10 October 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Peer Review==		==Peer Review==

			Group 1
			In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.

	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962: /* Peer Review */

2017-10-10T07:28:59Z

Peer Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 10 October 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Peer Review==		==Peer Review==
	In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.



	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}

Z5018962 at 07:27, 10 October 2017

2017-10-10T07:27:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 10 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{ANAT2341ProjectGroup2017table}}		{{ANAT2341ProjectGroup2017table}}

			==Peer Review==
	In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.		In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.

Z5018962 at 07:27, 10 October 2017

2017-10-10T07:27:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 10 October 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:


	~~Here~~ is the ~~[[Student Page]] demonstration~~ page I ~~showed~~ in the ~~Practical class~~.		In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.

	~~Use this page to practice editing and don't forget to add a topic to the [[2017 Group Project 3]] page.~~

	In the introduction section, it was not referenced where the information facts are from. This section should introduce a brief information on the topic, what you are going to discuss on the whole wiki page, introduce current researches and animal models to support the new findings and understandings. Also, don't use "actually" in the sentence. On the page, It is better to write in full sentences instead of dot points as I've seen a lot of them and include any of scientific words in the glossary section at the end of the page. Where you've inserted picture, it will be clearer to also include it within the text in brackets for example (Figure 1). Any figures or pictures on this page needs references as well. In the abnormality section, it is well written with supporting pictures, but in my opinion, it is easier to read if the the figures/pictures are on the same side and texts on the other side instead of alternating. This section was very thoroughly referenced too. I think a small paragraph under the heading introducing the different type of disorders before going into greater details. Don't focus too much on the anatomy as I can see this section is not finished nor written in paragraph and no pictures or figures, would be better to swap anatomy with some other embryology discussion for example, signalling processes Touch on current researches and animal model as they were not seen on the page. Also include a glossary table. References section is looking good but more is needed.


	~~<br>~~
	{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}		{{2017ANAT2341 footer}}