Talk:2010 Group Project 2

From Embryology
Revision as of 00:40, 23 September 2010 by Z3241780 (talk | contribs) (Peer Review)

Peer Review

Please note! when posting your peer review, we only have two group members. the other one dropped out. Thanks :)

Group 2: fantastic use of images, it definitely worked to your advantage in engaging your audience's attention. Over all the language used is relatively easy to follow yet informative. As someone has already mentioned, some more editing of spelling is required. The amount of attention to detail is evident in the references which are from a range of sources so well done. I particularly liked that the page covered accuracy and limitations of the diagnostic procedure. Something that lacked clarity in a few other groups. Good use of the table covering the abnormalities, maybe just adjust the cells of the table a little so the spacing appears more even as some cells have very little content while others are completely filled. What about the future of CVS? Is it a procedure that is going to continue as simply diagnostic? Is it being superseded by another procedure? Improvements? Just an idea. Well done overall. --z3241780 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

GROUP 2: Chorionic Villi Sampling

This page caught my attention as soon as I saw it and that made me want to read on and thus learn about Chorionic Villi Sampling. A lot of research has gone into this assignment and it’s evident in the information presented as its precise which also helps capture the readers. The amount of research is also evident in the long list of references. The webpage is actually extremely informative covering pretty much every aspect of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques. Your webpage has the most pictures and this helps it stand out as one of the best project pages. I really, really like the formatting and the tables. The images break up the information so you’re never overloaded with the amount of text. The only bit of criticism is spelling but this is extremely minor as you’ll pick up on the spelling mistakes when you go over the page. The language in is the right mixture of scientific language meaning that even people without a scientific background can understand the CVS. Great job guys you really can’t tell that only two people are in this group. It’s extremely good!!! I also really like the first picture you have, gives a page a really good feel to it.

--z3252635 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys!

You have found so many great pictures! Your page looks amazing. I just wonder where the files came from – I saw you put up the copyright notices, but I couldn’t find the file sources. Your timeline was great too; I really like how you put up the concise timeline and then expanded a bit on the major developments afterwards. Are the transabdominal and the transcervical pictures the student-drawn ones? If so, well done! They’re really clear and beautifully done, but you should probably label them as student drawn and put in the copyright statement. If I could suggest something, it would be that you put the advantages/disadvantages of CVS over other techniques in a table. Otherwise, your page is really easy to read, and again has brilliant visuals – great job!--z3252833 12:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Group 2, your project is looking great, the first thing i noticed when reading it is that there is lots of detail which shows a great depth of research has gone into it, which is supported by your reference list. Another thing is the amount of pictures which support the information and break it up to make it easier to take in so much information at once. The disorders table provides great detail and makes it interesting with the pictures.

What could be improved: You could put the advantages/disadvantages into a table form to make it even easier to understand. The reasons to use this technique could be slotted into the procedure section instead of the introduction maybe as it shows who is eligible for the procedure. The current research section could be put more into point form to make it more inviting to read. But overall really great project.

--z3292208 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This project is extremely well done. It seems a great effort has gone into proper referencing which also gives the impression of a thoughtful attempt. The balance of information mediums is great and the logical flow of ideas when reading through each section is perfect. Suggestion: possibly more pictures or a flowchart of the procedure itself?

Well done :)

--z3254753 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Group 2- This project had tons of photos which is super great because its much easier to follow... Most of the point made is supported with pictures ..definetly provided me a better understanding of CVS ..I agree with what others have mentioned its very informative and especially with just 2 team members .. fantastic work

what could be improved = a little more reference in the "result and accuracy" section since it includes some percentage other than that fantastic work ..--Navneet Ahuja 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Group project 2: chorionic villus sampling

This group had great images and the page layout was good too especially the tables which simplified the information and made it easier to read. The information presented was very informative, scientific, and all the key concepts were covered on the topic. The project had a very impressive reference list, and it did help in my understanding of this prenatal diagnostic technique.

What could be improved? I did find a spelling mistake under the heading Results and Accuracy were you have written “maybe” instead of “baby”, so maybe proof read the assignment to pick up on any other possible spelling or grammatical errors, other than that well done.

--z3254433 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This project was highly informative about CVS. It contained a lot of information in which it shows that a lot of research has gone into it. Everything has been covered like, what the test predicts and what risks are associated with this test. It was very scientific, yet easy to understand at a non-scientific level. I liked the external links how it directed me straight to a page of different articles about CVS.

What could be improved is maybe placing the "abnormalities found by CVS" section towards the top of the page, because i was a bit unsure on what this test predicted in the first place. I got confused between the risks of this test and what it predicted. But I managed to understand it all once all read through. Also, a definition of a "cannula" may be helpful in the glossary too, i wasn't sure what that exactly was.

--z3291079 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This project provides a clear understanding of the key information regarding CVS, such as how it is carried out, the risks and benfits of CVS, what it is used for as well as future research. I have find the pictures to be of a great help in explaining the procedure of CVS.

One think I did notice was that, it didn't state that the test was invasive until you figure it out when you look at the pictures in the procedures. I think stating that in the introduction would make it clearer for readers to follow on with the information this projects provides having that knowledge in mind at the start.

--3216889 12:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This web page is definitely one of my favorites. The information that you have provided is exceptional; the reference list is indicative of your extensive research. The table of deformities was a stand out for me as it was very well set out and was a effective break from the text. You also used excellent external links that were very well placed within the web page. A slight improvement would be to include a link or a reference to the brief time line where you state the names of the authors, and as previously mentioned, reference the statistics that you have included. Other than that, I applaud you for a job well done!--z3252083 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

--Group 2 Chronic villus sampling This webpage shows that the group was very thorough in the research due to the amount of detail that has gone into it and its many links. The layout is very well set out which helps someone understand it if he/she has no previous knowledge of the concept. The use of pictures and diagrams were done well as it broke the page up making it very easy to read and take in the information. The only advice I can give is to maybe separate the difference between normal and abnormal chromosomes and the adjacent table to allow the table more room and be easily viewed. That’s all guys and well done considering you only had 2 people working on it.

--3290040 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

to fix

outcomes + ethics, table comparing other techniques. got confused between the risks of this test and what it predicted. flowchart or more pictures of procedure?

group discussion

I agree the page feels more "in order" now. yeh... its tough trying to find more information. I guess i'll expand on maybe on some of the abnormalities? I was thinking we can get pictures of the several diseases but it will probably be a little difficult due to copyright? hmm if i get new ideas from now until tommorrow i'll definately add more stuff in --Jenny Huang 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jenny, i changed the order of the page around, i think it makes more sense now, before it didnt really flow from one section to the next, i think its a bit better, i tried to do it on this order, Intro, history, procedure, results, risks, advantages. that order seems to be how most wiki pages are set up, and how mark sets up his pages. what do you think? -Jill --z3265772 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i think i searched prenatal diagnosis in the search box on the left, and mark has made a prenatal diagnosis page. the prenatal diagnosis terms were on that. ive been looking at last years pages, and they have so much content, but there just isnt that much information on CVS. theres only so much you can write about it. i guess we need to start thinking outside the box and adding general prenatal stuff on here too. thats why i thought maybe another table with a timeline of other techniques on it. ? ill just do it and see how it looks... -Jill --z3265772 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

hmm good idea.. btw what article did you find the terms for the prenatal diagnosis? should i incorporate that in the results section? --Jenny Huang 15:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

maybe we could also do ethical issues? -Jill --z3265772 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea if we wanted to add more to the page, we could do another table, with the different diagnostic techniques used - eg ultrasound, AFP, amniocentesis and CVS etc and do a timeline with when each technique can be used, what it can test for, and how invasive it is. i know its not directly CVS, but it will give a good overview of the advantages and disadvantages etc. and im running out of ideas of what else we can have on here. can you think of anything else? -Jill --z3265772 12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Found out its due thurs, Sorry!! im doing malformations now, but we definitely need to add more content, last years pages had over 600 revisions, we only have 200. So add whatever you think we could do to improve the page. Thanks for your help over the weekend, i did feel alone in creating the page! Looks great now though! Maybe we could look at last years pages and see what we like about them, and maybe get some ideas on how to add to our page. im trying to put alot of effort in as its worth 20% of our final mark :) ive also added to the malformations part, ill keep doing that. Thanks!! -Jill --z3265772 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey can't make it to lecture today.. but if its due for peer assesment today/this week, what suggestions do you think we can improve on? hmm also whos doing the part on malformations? --Jenny Huang 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

yeah good question.. ill see if i can find something more recent and let you know. i guess it would be. also, hope you dont mind, i put some of your references in, and added some pictures :) -Jill --z3265772 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey for the section on malformations in current research, would it be limb defects? the articles I found were mostly from the 1990s so I'm not sure if I should use..--Jenny Huang 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yay it looks neat!!!glad you figured out how to fix the formatting.. It was rather confusing before haha. SOrry if it seems like you are doing most of the work :( I'll add to the current research to lighten off your load.i'll be working on it most of the weekend--Jenny Huang 16:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a table!! it took AGES but it looks good :) we probably need to spread everything out a bit, it looks a bit crowded, but getting there! i separated the risks from current research :)- Jill --z3265772 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm it didn't take that long.. btw I've already done it but I haven't uploaded it yet but I'll do so now... hmm by the way should the heading "risks" be separate from the "current assosciated research" heading?--Jenny Huang 02:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Did it take long to do the drawing for the transabdominal technique? i was thinking we could do a second one the same for transcervical. what do you think? - Jill --z3265772 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Im pretty sure its due monday for peer assessment, thats what it says in the course guide. did he say it was due thurs in the lab last week? hope its due thurs! that would be awesome! - Jill --z3265772 12:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jill, wow only 4 days! I was mistaken that it was due next thursday. But don't wrry, I'll have the whole weekend to finish up ;)--Jenny Huang 08:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Ive used a reference that is not from pub med, so you can copy that to use references that arent in pub med. :) only 4 days till its due! - Jill --z3265772 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

some pictures we can use, this first one is Primary chorionic villi, the second picture is secondary chorionic villi, these may be helpful when describing the technique -Jill --z3265772 09:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)



Hmm so basically we do the peer review the week after mid sem break until the 23rd of september, and we paste both the review on the groups page and on your own page... also apparently the other student discontinued the course so its just us doing the project now =S --Jenny Huang 03:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yay!! looks awesome!! Sorry i couldnt be there today, could you let me know what Mark says? thanks :) - Jill --z3265772 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded the first pic... I hope it's ok and if I did the layers wrongly please tell me so I can edit... also how do you do referencing that is not from pubmed journals?--Jenny 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, are you doing the drawn figure still? would you possibly be able to upload it before thursday? i have updated references for my section :) - Jill --z3265772 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

--Mark Hill 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I have emailed your missing team member , but have not had a response yet. Your should continue to work on the project together as best you can. It seems to be progressing, though I did ask you to update your reference format and I do not see a student drawn figure. You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.

Hi Jill, I'm working on it :) by the way have you heard from the other team member? Oh and I'll be drawing pictures for both the transcervical and transabdominal techniques..--Jenny Huang 07:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, only two weeks to go, we really need to do some more work, the editing at the end will be the hardest, so the sooner we finish, the easier it will be. - Jill--z3265772 23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we incorporate some sort of timeline? what do you think? maybe we can do a timeline of embryo development and note the time that CVS is done - Jill --z3265772 00:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark has kindly shown us how to reference, ill try to sort that out tonight or tomorrow - Jill --z3265772 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ive just discovered, you can use almost any picture on wiki, the copyrights have usually expired, which is why wiki can use them, just search CVS on wiki and if there is a picture you like, check the copyright and copy away!! :D -Jill --z3265772 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, please feel free to edit any work i have done, or add to it, or even suggest to me on this page what to add. what i have put up so far really is a rough draft and will be trying to add to it later anyway :) -Jill --z3265772 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Co-ordinator Comments
--This is an area for members of the group to communicate online and to place links and information relevant to the project. Do not forget to sign your additions and always add the newer material to the top of this page.

Projects: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Students Page | Help:Editing Basics

Hi guys, we need to get on top of this, its due for peer assessment in 3 weeks! Im going to do related research. does anyone want to do the drawing? ill also try and get some more references and photos up, as Mark has suggested. If you want a picture, just email the website with the picture on it, thats what ive been doing, they are usually pretty good about it. let me know of any other ideas you guys might have - Jill --z3265772 09:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

--Mark Hill 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC) OK there are a few references here, but you will need more than these few and there should be some related images.

Link for group assessment criteria: group assessment criteria - Jill--z3265772 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For current associated research:

- Jill--z3265772 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, i put up the link for Search Pubmed for our topic, did we want to assign ourselves a role to do or just see how the page goes? i thought maybe we could find a page that we like and follow a similar format, that way we know what our page will look like and can follow a layout as we go. -Jill --z3265772 01:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

also, see this web page Jill --z3265772 11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

project outline:

1. Intro

2. historic background

3. current associated research

4. simplified description of technique

5. student drawn figure or animation

6. reference list

7. glossary

8. external links

-Jill --z3265772 03:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to paste a picture from an outside source? i cant seem to figure it out. thanks :) -Jill --z3265772 05:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

dont worry, i figured it out :)

i think we should put the references list on this page to begin with to make sure we dont double up - Jill --z3265772 05:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys sorry for the delay in replies. I see you have made a contribution to the topic already :) By the way, where did you find the project outline criteria? Oh and if you don't mind I can do research on the description of technique and current research. Feel free to contribute :) oh and any ideas on how to work on the drawings? --Jenny Huang 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello guys,

So I found some journal articles that is of interest especially this one: which is long and has extensive information on the topic.. So I'll be editing my section in word and will be posting some info on technique in the future.

Btw here are some other articles that are of interest that can be accessed through unsw sirius:


I'll be adding more once I find some that are useful..

Oh and about the topic headings are we just going to use the ones in the assesment criteria?

--z3224500 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jenny!! i think its a great idea to use more headings, add as many as you like/can think of, i just cant think of any more. i think the assessment criteria is just the bare minimum we have to do, so please add more! Also, can we add the new discussion posts to the top of the page? so we dont have to scroll to the bottom every time? what do you think? (it says up the top of this page to add newer material at the top, just wondering what you thought). i really like the articles you have found too :) see you tomorrow - Jill --z3265772 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)