Difference between revisions of "Talk:2011 Group Project 1"

From Embryology
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
==Peer Review==
 
==Peer Review==
 +
 +
 +
'''Group 1: Peer Assessment'''
 +
* An image would make your introduction more engaging
 +
* The second paragraph of the introduction is already quite explanatory and might fit better into aetiology/pathogenesis. Instead one or two simple but engaging sentences would be goo.
 +
* The epidemiology section is good but if I wouldn't have learned about chromosomes I would feel a little confused.
 +
* There are writing mistakes and there is no copyright information in the table in the epidemiology section
 +
* The direct links to the glossary (blue words) in the aetiology section are great. If you would have those for all sections it would make your page look more whole
 +
* There are too few references in the aetiology section
 +
* Clinical Manifestations contain useful information, however it's also good to have a more detailed description. May be you could outline the most common clinical presentation a bid more explanatory.
 +
* The tables in the diagnostic section are great, just a different format, so that you don't have huge white gaps would be better
 +
* The treatment and research section are good. May be you could put a little introduction into the treatment section before you go straight into the subheadings.
 +
* Overall, your page has a good structure and is informative. The links to the glossary are great but should be used through the whole page. A few more pictures would make your page more engaging. --z3279511 17:06, 28 September 2011 (EST)
  
 
'''Group 1 Peer Assessment"
 
'''Group 1 Peer Assessment"

Revision as of 18:06, 28 September 2011

Group 1: User:z3060621 | User:z3217043 | User:z3217345 | User:z3391078


Peer Review

Group 1: Peer Assessment

  • An image would make your introduction more engaging
  • The second paragraph of the introduction is already quite explanatory and might fit better into aetiology/pathogenesis. Instead one or two simple but engaging sentences would be goo.
  • The epidemiology section is good but if I wouldn't have learned about chromosomes I would feel a little confused.
  • There are writing mistakes and there is no copyright information in the table in the epidemiology section
  • The direct links to the glossary (blue words) in the aetiology section are great. If you would have those for all sections it would make your page look more whole
  • There are too few references in the aetiology section
  • Clinical Manifestations contain useful information, however it's also good to have a more detailed description. May be you could outline the most common clinical presentation a bid more explanatory.
  • The tables in the diagnostic section are great, just a different format, so that you don't have huge white gaps would be better
  • The treatment and research section are good. May be you could put a little introduction into the treatment section before you go straight into the subheadings.
  • Overall, your page has a good structure and is informative. The links to the glossary are great but should be used through the whole page. A few more pictures would make your page more engaging. --z3279511 17:06, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1 Peer Assessment"

  • Few grammatical errors found in the introduction, such as missing words in the sentences but overall the introduction was well written.
  • Would have been good to include an image in the introduction eg. Chid diagnosed with the syndrome indicating the characteristic short stature.
  • Hyperlinks to the glossary are missing in the introduction and epidemiology sections.
  • Images named ‘stats abnormal’ and “turner syndrome X chromosome variations” does not include any copyright information.
  • The etiology section was well written but it would have easier to understand concepts such as ‘dysjunction’ if the image was linked after the section in paragraph that explains it. At the moment the image looks a bit random and is hard to understand the processes illustrated in it.
  • I liked how the clinical manifestations were divided into different parts.
  • Great use of table and images in the “Prenatal Diagnosis” section. Summarises the information quite well.
  • The text in the ‘current research’ section is a bit heavy and confusing. Either try and summarise the key points in a table or use an image to break up the text. The information presented in the future research section seems lacking compared with the ‘current research’ section.
  • Some words listed in the glossary do not include there definitions.
  • Overall good work. Just small things to fix up.

--Z3291622 15:53, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1 Assessment

  • Key Points: Clinical manifestations could probably have a better explanation, as opposed to a list? Perhaps try discussing the presentation of the disease, etc. Is there any history of the disease? Generally sections are of good length and the information is relevant.
  • Content is difficult to assess because there are sections that are lists of terms. Many items in the project rely heavily on this point-form, especially the clinical manifestations. Perhaps try using more images to support the clinical presentation/complications of the disease, as well as the prenatal diagnosis. The diagrams are used well when they are used.
  • Referencing is generally fine, although the first image doesn't seem to have a correct copyright license. As for the double references in the reference section, we have the same problem too!
  • The student-drawn diagram is simple but effective, and the images chosen are adequate to the project. However, the entire project seems a little brief in each section; try to ensure that you've written everything that you can!
  • All of the information is well-cited with a large number of sources and clearly shows that further research has been done. However, to make the project flow a bit better maybe have some more images and phrases to allow an explanation as opposed to just dot points on the work.

--Leonard Tiong 09:17, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1

  • An image would nicely complement your introduction.
  • A history timeline would be nice to include
  • A few sentences should be restructured in epidemiology
  • Clinical manifestations should be explained a little or include an image to break up the text
  • Nice tables in diagnosis- although some pictures should be made a little smaller
  • The student drawn maternal serum sampling image is really good
  • Treatment would benefit a picture
  • Good research section
  • Overall, good project you just need to fix a few things


Peer Assessment 1

  • Intro: sentences should be divided up into shorter ones, not 2 sentences
  • The picture next to epidemiology may look better on the other side? Balance it with the abnormalities graph
  • The 3rd sentence of the Epidemiology para could be worded better – you don’t need to use the word ‘remaining’
  • Hyperlink to glossary words from intro and epidemiology (like you have in the etiology section)
  • Clinical manifestations section is good – I like the layout
  • Wording of Diagnosis is funny – re-read it out loud and you will see 
  • Good use of tables, but 2nd is incomplete and needs a pic for the baby box
  • Perhaps expand on some of the treatments e.g. Speech and Future Research
  • Current research section is confusing with so many parts bolded, maybe use different formatting or colours to break it up a bit?
  • Referencing – some are repeated several times one after another, I think there is a way to condense them? (e.g. references 39-42 are all the same)

--Z3332824 22:48, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Comments on Group Project 1

Group 1:

  • Intro seems a bit to mundane, there is no ‘hook’ and a picture wouldn’t look bad either.
  • Spelling and grammatical mistakes in the epidemiology also the common abnormalities table/pic has no copyright permission in the journal either.
  • very little references in eitiology, surely all that information was gathered from somewhere.
  • the clinical manifestations section could be put in a table, maybe with a brief description of each item listed. How about some photos in this section?
  • table in diagnostic procedures is good and succinct, however the picture has no copyright notification.
  • A short table for treatment? Maybe some photos to relate the procedures used to what is being said.
  • current & future research is good however the sheer amount of reading is too much, so maybe find a way to space it out?
  • glossary is very awesome and I love the links!
  • multiple references need to be fixed!

--z3291423 17:43, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment Group 1: Turners Syndrome

  • The introduction is very extensive and provides a good overview to the website. Maybe a bit too much information/detail for the introduction.
  • Headings and Subheadings are appropriate and demonstrate a good understanding of the topic. Information flows from each heading to the next and is quite easy to follow.
  • Perhaps adding a few more terms to the glossary from the epidemiology section such as: ‘gonadoblastoma’.
  • Etiology: good use of glossary, very useful
  • Clinical Manifestations: easy to understand but perhaps consider a table format? And particularly in the physical attribute subheading, this could be improved with an image.
  • The diagnosis section is well balanced in terms of images and text. The tables are a good idea, however could be formatted a bit differently so that the text and images are in proportion – eliminates excessive blank space in the age and phenotypic manifestation column.
  • Research: good layout; may benefit from use of external links or links to the glossary.

--z3332327 14:52, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment

  • Introduction terms not bold or linked to the glossary “monosomy” made the introduction most confusing. Referencing of this heading contain only links should manually reference if possible.
  • Image from the epidemiology need to be explained of the congenital disorders from turners a small paragraph would suffice. Also similar to the introduction the referencing of the 4th reference can be found on “Pubmed” and could be referenced properly instead of having links.
  • Etiology had good flow and genetic terms linked to glossary which was useful. Content links to the images with some elaboration, only issue is the referencing is not done properly and should be done properly.
  • Clinical manifestation contains useful information of the disorders related though has many referencing repeating and should be fixed. Not only this but maybe the heading would be better to be below the diagnosis to have better flow to know what your diagnosing .
  • Diagnosis has good use of tables and images to display the methods to diagnose the disorder with labelled diagrams though would be better more separation between text looks to cramped together .
  • Treatment seems unorganised with no clear way to know what a treatment is or not as first paragraphs is a routine check-up and should be placed as another sub heading or below with management.
  • Referencing in general should be major concern removing the repeats and those not done properly altered.
  • Research id layout is clear with sufficient amount if description of the research done in this field.
  • If possible timeline would be best in understanding the origin of the disorder and link to the current research.

z3332250 23:35, 26 September 2011 (EST)


GROUP 1 peer review: Turner Syndrome

  • Introduction is informative and well summarised, however a few sentences are a bit lengthy and can be better structured so paragraphs flow easily. e.g. "It is caused by complete or partial X monosomy in some or all cells and occurs in approximately 1 in 2000 live female births, however the morbidity rate of spontaneous abortions is 10% and only about 1% of fetuses survive to term." can be better structured. In addition there are several spelling mistakes that are distracting e.g. "The affected organ systems and tissues may are effected to a lesser or greater extent amongst that are affected by turner syndrome" - this sentence doesn't make sense at all
  • You may also want to incorporate an image to break up the text in the intro
  • One of the requirements for the group project is to include the history of the disease, the intro contains very minimal background information but besides this there's no evidence of research into how this disease was discovered and developments in its understanding
  • The image beside epidemiology is obstructing the break up of the introduction and epidemiology, you may want to fix this. This image may also be better if made a little bigger
  • The prevalence is repeated in both intro and epidemiology, maybe just mention it in just one section
  • Epidemiology info is very informative but really needs to be proof read, this lets down the whole section. Some of the sentences contain spelling mistakes and grammar needs to be reviewed e.g. "The phenotype of Turner Syndrome is varies but it involves anomalies of the sex chromosome" and "Turner Syndrome can be transmitted from mother to daughter, and thus can it could be described as a heredity linked syndrome"
  • "The remaining third have structural abnormalities of the X chromosomes, and two thirds are mosaics. Whereby, the maternal X is retained in two-thirds of women and the paternal X in the remainder." - sentences like this need to be fixed to make more sense
  • Some sentences are also very abrupt and short, could be revised so they flow more
  • The Karyotype image is incorrectly referenced and does not contain the copyright clearance statement, this needs to be fixed
  • The abnormalities graph really needs fixing, not correctly referenced, no copyright clearance statement and title isn't very descriptive
  • I really like how the words relevant to this syndrome are linked to the glossary, this really helps the reader, saving us from having to scroll down to the bottom of the page. This could be applied to the whole page
  • The non-disjunction image is informative but needs to be properly referenced
  • The info in etiology is very informative and comprehensive, but again grammar is a problem e.g. "When an uneven distribution is such that one of the gametes does not have any of a chromosome" -consider revising this sentence
  • The image 22+23=45 could be better placed so that it doesn't overlap into the next section
  • The clinical manifestations section has an extensive list, but could be improved by maybe having a paragraph or two describing these not just a link to a reference, an image of some of these manifestations may also enhance this section
  • The diagnosis section has a good balance of text and image and there is great use of tables. Also the links to the glossary again is helpful
  • maybe consider making the images in the table a little smaller
  • Student drawn images are included and comprehensive
  • Treatment and research sections are succinct and informative, easy to go through
  • I really like the way the glossary is formatted, makes it very easy to access
  • The extensive reference list is impressive and indicative that a lot of research has gone into this page

Over all:

  • There really needs to be thorough proof reading to correct grammar, better structure your sentences, and generally make better sense of some sentences, this particularly applies to epidemiology section
  • You should also fix the referencing of the images, copyright statements are missing

--z3331556 22:08, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1 Peer Review

  • Introduction gives brief history-is there any timeline or more detailed history available?
  • Sub headings are in a logical order, flows well
  • Picture next to epidemiology is too small
  • Prenatal diagnosis-well done. Good use of information
  • Needs to be proof read especially introduction. Some structuring of sentences and paragraphs throughout page needs work
  • Images need to be checked for correct referencing and copyright
  • Glossary is well structured however it could be extended a little, especially in relation to the first half of site
  • Overall referencing is well done however some duplication
  • Overall, well researched. Most of the content is there, need to finalise presentation eg. Spelling, grammar, layout, etc.

--Fleur McGregor 16:36, 26 September 2011 (EST)


Strengths:

  • The alphabetisation of the glossary helps readers to search for terms more easily. I really like this bit.
  • The link of some of the words under Etiology to Glossary is really good. The reader can directly find out the meaning of a particular word without scrolling down much.
  • All the characteristics and diseases are supported by scientific articles.
  • The summaries given for each of the articles under Research gives the reader a gist of each article. It gives the reader a rough idea of where research for Turner Syndrome is heading towards.
  • Overall: It has a good flow to the page with headings and sub-headings appropriately placed.

Weaknesses:

  • The wikipage needs to be vetted. There are quite a few grammatical and punctuation errors.
  • The placements of some images are disrupting the format of the page e.g the image of “22+23=45”.
  • There are duplication in referencing. It will be good to combine the references to only one reference number per article to avoid duplication
  • Some of the images did not include copyright statements which allow wiki users to reuse the images e.g. the karyotype image & image on abnormalities.
  • Some of the references are just website links. This will need to be corrected.
  • History of Turner Syndrome is not available. How was the syndrome first discovered? When was it discovered?

Specific corrections:

  • The second sentence of introduction “It is caused by…survive to term” is a bit too long. Breaking it into two sentences might be better.
  • “During normal fetal development, each ovary contain as many as 7 million oocytes”. The word “contain” should be “contains”.
  • “The oocytes gradually reduced to 400,000 during menarche and during menopause fewer than 10,000 remains.” Insert the word “are” after “oocytes”.
  • Standardise the term “Turner Syndrome”. Either all should be “Turner Syndrome” or “Turner syndrome”
  • “…which is complete by the time the infant, is aged 2.” The word “complete” should be “completed”.
  • “Genetically menopause” I’m not sure what this means. Is it supposed to be “Genetically-induced menopause”?
  • “For example short stature is caused by a deletion of the Xp chromosome and the deletion of Xq causes gonadal dysfunction”. There should be a comma after the word “example”.
  • The image on abnormalities associated with Turner Syndrome might be more suitable to be placed under clinical manifestations.

--Z3389806 22:40, 25 September 2011 (EST)


Group 1

  • Interesting introduction, but includes quite a few spelling mistakes, make sure you correct them.
  • The epidemiology section includes lots of information, but the sentences make sometimes no sense, or include writing mistakes.
  • Maybe place the “karyotype” image on the right, it interrupts the epidemiology section.
  • I like the “malfunctions” image, but it looks a bit lost at this position, and lacks a copyright information.
  • The sperm + egg image is genius, but it disrupts the flow on the left side, so maybe put in to the right.
  • Clinical manifestations: the heading should be on the left edge of the page, the content is ok but would look better in a table.
  • Diagnostic procedures: very good section, but the tables seem a bit too big.
  • The treatment section looks fine, except for the “speech ” and ”appearance” part. Those could include more information.
  • The research section seems very well done.
  • The glossary is incomplete. You should decide, if you want to link the words or not, but if you do, it must be for the hole

page, and not only one section.

  • Make sure all images include a copyright notice.


Group 1 Critique

  1. • The introduction is quite interesting. Clinical features of the disease, even if given as an example, should not be mentioned in the introduction
  2. • The graph comparing common malformations of Turner Syndrome in the epidemiology is quite good, however it should be explained a little more clearly. Also, where is the copyright information for the graph?
  3. • The aetiology has terms in it which are not properly explained e.g. random assortment. Give clearer explanations
  4. • Clinical manifestations are explained ok. Maybe put it in sentence form instead of listing it in bullet points
  5. • Diagnostic Procedures is labelled and explained ok. Maybe expand upon the techniques a little more instead of just summarizing them in a table
  6. • Treatment is ok. Could have a little more explanation though
  7. • Research and future research is good
  8. • Glossary is incomplete- random assortment, sister chromatids

--Robert Klein 18:26, 24 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1

Firstly, nice progress with the group project. After reading your page, I have a good general knowledge of Turner Syndrome, so thanks. Overall, most sections were well done, though the writing style and layout could be more consistent, but you could work on that when you've finalised the content of the page.

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Good intro, very first image of the karyotype should include the actual statement of the 'Open access' not just 'copyright'
    • Epidemiology: Grammatical errors disrupt the flow of the content, in addition, graph has no copyright info, title could be improved
    • Etiology: Nice simple diagram of 22 eggs and 23 sperms, good example of when a picture can tell more than a thousand words! I feel there needs to be consistency either use Turner Syndrome or TS throughout the page
    • Clinical: liked how you have further classified the symptoms to its associated titles, nice idea; very easy to read, but a table would also be good
    • Diagnosis: image of TS maternal serum sampling doesn't contain {Template:2011 Student Image}, but a very good table
    • image of the TS X chromosome variations shouldl contain {Template:2011 Student Image}. Furthermore, if you use A-E in image descriptions, you should include A-E within the image
    • Research: very good layout and explanations, informative
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Could include more images especially in clinical manidestations, and some images do not fit the requirements set by Mark, as I've highlighted above
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • seems to be cited well. However, although you have more than 100 referencees, a lot of them are repeated references, maybe you could try to use more pubmed articles, a greater variety
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
    • Glossary: could include more words such as echocardiogram
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • Although you have more than 100 referencees, a lot of them are repeated references, maybe you could try to use more pubmed articles, a greater variety
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
    • Although the content is informative, I'm left feeling like I want more variety of resources, so maybe some further research will improve the overall impression of your page
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • consistency in writing style
  • more images and cited correctly

--z3291643 14:44, 24 September 2011 (EST)

Turner Syndrome

  • Just make sure you’re consistent with the capital letters for Turner syndrome, you’ve got ‘Turner syndrome’, ‘turner syndrome’ and ‘Turner Syndrome’ throughout the page
  • The page looks good, just a bit of final rearrangement of the images would be even better
  • You’ve got a lot of good information in "Clinical Manifestations" but perhaps the information would look better in a table as opposed a long list? Some pictures wouldn’t go astray either
  • I like the links down to the glossary, it makes it very efficient
  • The table in "Diagnosis" looks really good, but try to shrink the pictures in it down a bit so it’s not so huge
  • It would be good to expand some of the sections in “Treatment”, you’ve got a really good basis but you need more than one line in “Speech” etc
  • Your "Research" is very detailed with lots of good papers
  • Overall it is quite a good page, it just needs a little bit of reformatting


Group 1

  • first glance of your project it appears that there is a lack of consistency with the image/text ratio. There are areas with lots of images and areas where there is a bulk of text with no images. It would be better if you spread the images out evenly between the sections rather than clumping them all together.
  • The epidemiology is very word heavy. There are a number of terms in there that I think would benefit from having a link to the glossary. By the end of the section I was left feeling a little overwhelmed.
  • The etiology section is good. Links to the glossary are very helful.
  • The clinical manifestations is ultimately just a list. There are no images and nothing exciting about this- I was almost inclined to skip over it because it did not draw my attention. This is the perfect place to have interesting images and yet there is none. This section needs to be reformatted.
  • The diagnostic material was easily accessible and interesting.
  • As a whole, the information you need is all there, you just need to reformat your page so that it is more appealing and more easily accessed by the audience.

Group 1 - Turner Syndrome

  • Introduction: The second paragraph of the introduction partly observes poor sentence structure, and in general needs a little bit more clarification. Also, I wouldn't necessarily include that information in the introduction, but put it under a different heading, etiology maybe? The following paragraph is good, just watch out with this sentence: "Each person who has turner syndrome all vary" - that doesn't quite make sense. Each person varies, or people with TS all vary...
  • Epidemiology: This sentence really doesn't make sense to me: "Whereby, the maternal X is retained in two-thirds of women and the paternal X in the remainder." Furthermore, the whole paragraph needs editing in terms of sentence structure. The content is good, though could do with slightly more explanation.
  • The table with the common abnormalities is good, but in a slightly random place.
  • None of these first sections include links to the glossary. Explaining some of the terms in more detail could easily be achieved by linking them to the glossary.
  • Etiology: Be careful when saying meiosis creates genetic diversity. Yes, meiosis creates diversity by shuffling existing alleles and producing new combinations, but the underlying mechanism, which is the main drive for genetic diversity, is mutation because that is what creates new alleles. (I'm just saying this because my lecturer in genetics was very keen on making us understand this difference!) Other than that, excellent explanation of how the genotype of Turner Syndrome occurs. Considering some of the genetic component was also explained under epidemiology, it would be useful to relate this information to what has already previously been mentionned.
  • Clinical Manifestations: Poor. Referencing not done properly, no explanations, a simple list really tells hardly anything about the manifestations. Linking them to articles is useful, but not doing anything else makes the whole exercise of creating a page dedicated to a disease pointless if there won't actually be any descriptions or explanations.
  • Diagnostic Procedures: Very well explained, good use of diagrams and figures to illustrate the text.
  • Treatment: Links to the glossary would be good. Content is good, but the referencing isn't done properly, and some figures would be nice to illustrate things, it looks a little bit dry as such a long blurb of text.
  • Current research: Looks fine to me
  • Future research: Good idea!
  • Glossary: Could be more extensive, mainly because some sections do not contain any links to the glossary.
  • References: Needs fixing. it appears as though it hasn't been done right a single time... (ie one and the same paper occurs multiple times in the list)
  • General: There are obvious quality differences between the different sections, which is a shame. Parts are done really well, others not so much. The content and subsections would be fine if they all had the same standard as the well-written ones.

Group 1

  • Good overall structure with headings and subheadings, it breaks up the text and makes it easy to follow.
  • Very interesting topic with a lot of good relevant information.
  • Pictures and tables are great. Just make sure your pictures are referenced properly eg. karyotype picture. also it might make the page look cleaner if the pictures are either all on the left or all on the right. this also may avoid the headings being shifted.
  • Maternal Serum Sampling, very nicely drawn, could you maybe label the picture as to what everything is so the reader can identify the structures easily.
  • Might be nice to add in a history timeline.
  • maybe you could use sub headings in the aetiology section.
  • Clinical manifestations had good use of subheading and collated information. I like the simplicity of dot points... could you maybe add a picture here to break up the text and keep the reader engaged.
  • Make sure your references aren't doubled int the list.


Group 1:

  • The introduction is very thorough, however the use of too many statistics and scientific terms like “partial x monosomy” make it difficult to read, especially for an introduction. By hyper-linking the glossary terms or by using a simple explanation of the word in the sentence could help make this section more reader friendly.
  • The introduction also needs to be re-read to fix little mistakes such as those in the following sentences “The affected organ systems and tissues may are effected to a lesser or greater extent amongst that are affected by turner syndrome.” and “However, there still further research to be completed.” An image added to this section also wouldn’t hurt.
  • I would suggest that you play around with the placement of the images in the epidemiology section. Where they are placed now disrupts the flow of the text or leaves a large blank space between the next heading, which is also disruptive. The first image can be made a little larger and the second image does not have the correct copyright or title format.
  • The epidemiology section also needs to be proof read to fix little mistakes.
  • The etiology section is done very well, it is very easy to read and made easier with the hyper-links to the glossary.
  • Image 1 under etiology is missing “{{Template:2011 Student Image}}” and image 2 has a little mistake in the explanation “Complete absence of on effected of the X sex chromosomes...” and needs to be moved slightly so that it doesn’t indent the next heading.
  • Nice referencing in the clinical manifestation section although the symptoms need to be explained more. What is it? What are the implications of it? A picture could be useful where text can’t explain a symptom.
  • Diagnostic procedures section is done very well. Good balance between images, text and tables however all the images need to include“{{Template:2011 Student Image}}”. Very good student drawn images and explained very well - I didn’t even realise they were student drawn until I read that they were! Hyper-linking to the glossary is also a bonus.
  • Treatment is done well especially by breaking up the text into sub-headings, some spelling mistakes though such as “Also if convex gorwth of toenails”.
  • Research is very informative but by bolding the reference, it makes it hard to follow and read. Maybe if you include a space in between the findings of the paper or a table could help this section.
  • The reference section needs to be fixed as references should not be listed more than once under the reference section. Read the section on “multiple referencing” under “editing basics”.

--z3290815 13:01, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Uploaded Student Images - Please include the following template in all uploaded image information. Copy the text shown below including the curly brackets in page view mode, and paste at the end of the information box area when uploading your image.

{{Template:2011 Student Image}}



Hey guys, I'm sorry I'm just now getting on here so late... I've been really really sick ever since I came back from Cairns a couple days ago, then couldn't find my flashdrive that all my information was on I was going to upload. :( I'm working on my sections now again (had to start from semi-scratch) and should have them complete by the end of the night. I'm kind of worried about the rest of the page though... It seems like only one (maybe two) other people have even contributed??? Did someone drop out of the class? We need to figure this out ASAP to pick up the slack. Also, I couldn't help but notice that nothing so far has been cited...? Maybe people are having trouble with how to cite the works? I guess we can talk about it in class on Thursday. I think it would be a good idea if we could get together sometime this weekend to work on the overall page as a group. Let me know what you all think. Ashley

Hi Ashley, I am happy to meet up this Sunday sometime if that suits you. I have completed some of my sub-sections and will put them up soon.

Great! I'm still working on mine... My internet kept messing up last night, so we had to get it fixed today; working on it now. Unforunately Sunday's the ONLY day this weekend I'm not free. We can talk more tomorrow in lecture/lab! :)


--Mark Hill 10:44, 8 September 2011 (EST) Some of the existing sub-sections have appropriate content, but there are also empty sub-sections, a total lack of referencing/citation and no glossary.

  • The referencing issue needs urgent progress.
  • Existing figures/table are appropriate.
  • There needs to be more images in this work.
  • Where is the student drawn figure?
  • Project recent history shows a single group member wiring on this topic.


So I guess we are doing Turner's Syndrome? Or are we still discussing?

I think Thalassemia sounds really interesting and there is more scope for research/ learning something new rather than the sex chromosome abnormalities.

Here are two articles which were interesting I found:

A rapid detection for α-thalassemia by PCR combined with dissociation curve analysis

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in thalassemia

--z3217043 20:24, 10 August 2011 (EST)

Thalassemia

Hey guys I'm going to do the History and the Treatment of Thalassemia. --z3217043 10:32, 25 August 2011 (EST)

Ashley Smith- I'm doing Etiology and Clinical Manifestations --Ashley Smith 10:58, 25 August 2011 (EST)

The two sub-sections that I will be researching are diagnostic procedures and current/future research possibilities. --z3217345 11:03, 25 August 2011 (EST)

Discussion

There a number of research and review articles, particularly on PubMed, so maybe post ones that you find interesting up and then we can maybe assign sections to everyone next lab so that we can further research those particular areas individually?--z3217345 13:55, 10 August 2011 (EST)

I had found two of the same articles that had already been posted, so I had to go back and find different ones. I'm not sure if we really are going to do Turner's Sydrome since not all of us were present when we named it. We can decide in class tomorrow I guess. --Z3391078 02:23, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Maybe we can begin thinking about the general sections we might have? Introduction, History, Causes, Symptoms, Treatment, Prognosis, Prevention, Current Research, Future Research, Glossary? Any thoughts? --z3217345 09:00, 18 August 2011 (EST)

Here are some free full text articles that might be helpful:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21840746

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16821224

http://eje-online.org/content/151/6/657.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1273980/?page=3

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/84/12/4345.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1511250/?page=1

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/86/7/3061.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118376/?tool=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883963/?tool=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20361125

http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/6/603.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613558/?tool=pubmed

Research Articles

Turner syndrome and metabolic derangements: Another example of fetal programming.--z3217345 13:44, 10 August 2011 (EST) (Prior topic)

Turner syndrome and sexual differentiation of the brain: implications for understanding male-biased neurodevelopmental disorders. --z3217345 13:44, 10 August 2011 (EST)(Prior topic)

Estrogen requirements in girls with Turner syndrome; how low is enough for initiating puberty and uterine development?--z3217345 13:44, 10 August 2011 (EST)(Prior topic)

Outcomes of spontaneous and assisted pregnancies in Turner syndrome: the U.S. National Institutes of Health experience. --Z3391078 02:18, 11 August 2011 (EST)

How I treat thalassemia--z3217345 11:45, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Pulmonary function in thalassaemia major and its correlation with body iron stores--z3217345 11:45, 11 August 2011 (EST)


Review Articles

Optimising management in Turner syndrome: from infancy to adult transfer.--z3217345 13:44, 10 August 2011 (EST)(Prior topic)

Turner Syndrome --Z3391078 02:31, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Beta-thalassemia--z3217345 11:45, 11 August 2011 (EST)


Images

I found a pic of what the cells look like under a microscope.

alt text

--Aisyah Barchia 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Miotic Cell Defects

--z3217043 11:06, 18 August 2011 (EST)


Thromboembolic Events In Thalassemia Intermedia (TI) VS Thalassemia Major (TM)

--z3217345 08:57, 18 August 2011 (EST)

File:PULMONARY HYPERTENSION.JPG
Pulmonary Hypertension

Nothing going on here guys? There should be some discussion within your group on the possible topic. --Mark Hill 23:53, 7 August 2011 (EST)

Plagiarism

--Mark Hill 07:35, 30 September 2011 (EST) Currently all students originally assigned to each group are listed as equal authors/contributors to their project. If you have not contributed the content you had originally agreed to, nor participated in the group work process, then you should contact the course coordinator immediately and either discuss your contribution or request removal from the group author list. Remember that all student online contributions are recorded by date, time and the actual contributed content. A similar email reminder will be sent to all current students.

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

"Claiming credit for a proportion of work contributed to a group assessment item that is greater than that actually contributed;"

Academic Misconduct carries penalties. If a student is found guilty of academic misconduct, the penalties include warnings, remedial educative action, being failed in an assignment or excluded from the University for two years.

2011 Projects: Turner Syndrome | DiGeorge Syndrome | Klinefelter's Syndrome | Huntington's Disease | Fragile X Syndrome | Tetralogy of Fallot | Angelman Syndrome | Friedreich's Ataxia | Williams-Beuren Syndrome | Duchenne Muscular Dystrolphy | Cleft Palate and Lip


Peer Assessments

Group 1:

  • Your page was extremely in depth which was really great.
  • Its great that you’ve linked words to the glossary
  • The use of a range of different images was good and I like how you made the effort to copyright your own image!
  • You’re referencing needs to be tidied up; there are multiple entries from the same source that tends to clutter your reference section.
  • The dot point form of clinical manifestations perhaps could have been better formatted into a table as I personally found your formatting confusing and slightly not a well-organised.

--z3332629 15:20, 22 September 2011 (EST)