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

From Embryology
Line 714: Line 714:
  
 
== Discussion ==
 
== Discussion ==
 +
 +
With the etiology could ive tried placing the images in the section. but could not get it in its right position.
  
 
All the images on pub med have not open access to it. They all need request permissino to reuse. Did anybody find any images on turner that actually says open access on it?
 
All the images on pub med have not open access to it. They all need request permissino to reuse. Did anybody find any images on turner that actually says open access on it?
Line 757: Line 759:
  
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613558/?tool=pubmed
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2613558/?tool=pubmed
+
 
 
== Concerning Discussion Contributions ==
 
== Concerning Discussion Contributions ==
  

Revision as of 11:41, 6 October 2011

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


Page Edits 30 Sep


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

Turner Syndrome (Group 1) Peer Review:

Introduction: This introduction is quite interesting. It covers most topic areas that will be addressed later in the page. However, the main issue I found with the introduction is its poor grammar and sentence structure. This may slightly put the reader off when reading and we do not want this to happen – especially when you have such an interesting topic. Such examples include: “which is complete by the time the infant, is aged 2” which does not require a comma in between “infant” and “is”.

Epidemiology: Once again good content but sentence structure does not make sense at times. Example: “phenotype of Turner Syndrome is varies but it involves anomalies of the sex chromosome” – delete “is” – it is not needed. Also, the abnormalities image in this section needs to be re-visited. It lacks copyright notice, the student template as well as a full reference in the information section. The karyotype image presents with the same problems – note that “Copyright © Indian Journal of Human Genetics” is not sufficient as a copyright notice as it does not state that the information is open access and that you can re-use it.

Etiology: Great information in this section and great use of the two images. They work well with the information and help the reader to visualize what you have said in words. Limited number of references in this section. Did you really obtain all of this information from the one source?

Thanks have fixed the images.

Clinical Manifestations: This section needs more work. It is merely a list which needs to be further expanded and explained. It may help to organize this information into a table. Also consider placing a picture in this section as it would make it more appealing to the reader.

Diagnostic Procedures: I found this section to be the most well balanced and explained. The reader can tell you have done your research with the abundance of references in this section. Also, the images are very good and help depict visually what you are describing in your text. Well done with this section.

Treatment: This section is sound. More work could be attributed to this section- possibly greater detail in some headings such as speech. Also, a picture once again is a good idea to include to break up the text.

Current/ Future Research: Well done. It seems a lot of work has gone into this section; however maybe place the text in a different format? Possibly add a picture? But otherwise good content!

Glossary: Good set-out. However, needs completion.

References: This section is lacking in quality. Not all references have been referenced using the correct format. The same reference such as “↑ P Saenger, K A Wikland, G S Conway, M Davenport, C H Gravholt, R Hintz, O Hovatta, M Hultcrantz, K Landin-Wilhelmsen, A Lin, B Lippe, A M Pasquino, M B Ranke, R Rosenfeld, M Silberbach, Fifth International Symposium on Turner Syndrome Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of Turner syndrome. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.: 2001, 86(7);3061-9 PMID:11443168” repeats many times in the list. It should appear as the one reference with many links to the citation, represented with numbers such as 1.1, 1.2 etc. Please see instructions for how to reference correctly in “editing basics” in the “shortcuts” tab of the wikipage on the left hand side.

Overall the page displays good content and technique. Some areas need more work than others. Good luck! --z3290808 10:39, 29 September 2011 (EST)

  • A great level of research is represented on the Page clearly. I would like to add some comments that could be useful in making the project better.
  • The introduction has lots of information as ( 3 paragraphs seems to be a lot for the introduction section ) It would look nicer in a shorter or summarised version and less details. Probably an image would make it look less wordy.
  • The images of Etiology Looks great and I like how they are labelled. Also, the highlighted words, which leads to another page are well done.
  • Diagnosis is one of the best presented sections on the page. The balance between images and words is greatly seen. You may consider minimizing the pictures in the tables so the extra white space is removed.
  • You have done a great job in gathering all the content into this page, I like how the Glossary is in alphabetical order. In the References, you may want to delete the repeated references. The last thing I would recommend is adding more pictures to make it more interesting and appealing especially after Diagnosis section. z3284061


Turner Syndrome – Group 1

  • Some editing on the “Clinical manifestations” and “Epidemiology” headings to make them start on the next line would look a bit better I think.

yep made it in its section.


  • Possible the addition of some images on the clinical manifestations section would be appropriate, also the idea of a table mentioned earlier by another reviewer I think would suit this sort of information well.
  • The glossary is perhaps a little incomplete? Only in some sections though, such as epidemiology and clinical manifestations. Other sections are well defined in glossary.
  • Future research section is very brief, also thought that you could possibly elaborate as to the direction that this future research is taking and what is trying to be learnt about the syndrome.
  • Some referencing issues with the images, namely the Epidemiology graph and the student drawn image in Diagnostic Procedures.
  • Overall I found the writing style very logical and succinct. Each section is covered quite well. Some errors in sentence structure and grammer however this could be fixed with a thorough proof read.
  • Under the clinical manifestations heading I thought that some terms used could be better defined in this section rather than just listing the conditions. Glossary could also be used, but I think overall it would make this section much more informative.
  • The treatment section seemed like it could include a little more information, a little brief for some of the sub-headings.

--Z3288196 10:38, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1:

“Turner’s syndrome” should be the topic and all other sections should go under it as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc.

The pictures are aligned funny, which disrupts the overall formatting of the page.

Excessive amounts of references in the clinical manifestations.

Yes thanks thats been done by a team member already.

Good student drawn picture but the prenatal diagnosis pics should have a title attached to it.

Awesome glossary, but the glossary and references take up half the page. Probably because the references are duplicated.

z3332178 =]


Look of the presentation - A little work needs to be done on your formatting. Your pictures need to be aligned with the text better. "Stats abnormal.jpg" intrudes into the text. It makes the page look a little sloppy. Further, You have large blocks of texts that would be better put into tables to break down and simplify the information presented.

Your clinical manifestions is very basic. It looks like you have read a number of articles and just listed terms. It would be better if each manifestation was coupled with the reason for that sign/symptom. For example, write down the term, what it means and how the non-disjuntion causes it at a protein/molecular level.

Positives - Your topic is very well researched. You seem to understand and convey that understanding very well. The body of the work is done. I would suggest looking at other pages and presenting/formatting yours so that it looks a little neater. GOOD JOB! --Ziggy Harrison-Tikisci 10:15, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1:

  • Intro: good, brief, easy to understand. An image may have made it more interesting? Could be good to write in something about females being the only gender affected. Needs proofreading.
  • Epidemiology: I found the image layout slightly distracting, aligning these nicely would make reading easier. Needs to be proofread.
  • Etiology: I liked the hyperlinks but it would be better if you could link the words to its actual place in the Glossary.
  • clinical manifestations: good section, maybe instead of just listing it, you could explain it a bit as well, or put it in a table. Layout looks a bit awkward in one massive column, list after list.
  • diagnostic procedures: really liked the drawings here, esp the student drawn image. But the table seems a little too big, maybe make pictures a bit smaller.
  • overall: needs to be proofread. Headings and subheadings flow in a nice sequence.

yes thanks still in the process.

--z3290558 09:54, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Group 1 peer review

Please organise the overall layout of this website. For example you could distribute the images so that the majority are not on just one side.It will also be nice if the website is spread out so that the headings are neat.

Introduction: A great overview of all the section. However, the use of more easy language in the introduction will be good. For example ‘partial X monosomy’ is a hard concept to understand. Maybe you should elaborate or repharse it using easier terminology. A nice picture related to the introduction content would be nice.

its been placed in glossary.

thanks have done it but will be rephrasing more...

Epidemiology: Some sentences are difficult to understand, such as ‘The morphological differences from those retaining the maternal compared to retaining the paternal X is have shown to have a greater incidence of cardiovascular anomalies and neck webbing.’ The information in this table is good but because there are copyright issues what about drawing a chart yourself. Perhaps you could base it on this chart but put the percentages into a table. I believe this will allow you to go around the copyright issues (should probably check with Mark)

its not a image taken by a journal. Ive put it in a table format from a journal.

Etiology: The links to the glossary is great and user friendly.

Clinical Manifestation: Including some images will attract the reader's attention. A table format will also improve the layout. An explanation or a link to the glossary for difficult terms may help the reader. An example is 'alopecia areata'

Diagnositic Procedures: There is a good balance of text and images. I especially like the hand drawn image.

Treatment: There are good heading in this sections which divide the information into segments which can be read easily. However, reorganising the order of the information in a logical manner would be good. Maybe you would arrange it according to the age group that each treatments are targeted to.

--z3289301 09:36, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Review

Overall, this wiki is very easy to read and very well researched. However a lot issues need to be addressed:

  • It would be better if the Introduction was split into two parts; maybe dedicate a section for History.
  • A history timeline would be appreciated.
  • Would be a lot better if the first thing to mention of Turner Syndrome was the fact it is female only.

Ive mentioned female abnormalities throughout but i did it only once mentioned ONLY so should that be fine?

  • A few grammar errors noticed; needs to be proofread.
  • Could use more pictures; a picture every section.
  • Graph at Epidemiology is not referenced properly even after Mark Hill addressed the issue. Needs to fixed ASAP.
  • The glossary in incomplete and I don't like the break-up of the alphabet letters in every title; I find it very distracting.
  • References are constantly repeated. This does not have 150 individual references. I find it misleading and a quick check at the wiki help site can fix this.


--z3293267 06:42, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Review


  • Intro: It’s best to introduce the disease with an image or shock factor or the most interesting aspect of the disease. When you start with stats (eg: 1/200 females, morbidity rate, 10%) etc, it makes it sound dull and the reader will lose interest.
  • Epidemiology: The images in this section don’t state the copyright information. The images also don’t have any explanation. A major part of epidemiology is the distribution of the disease, which there is no mention of. Perhaps a world map as to where people are most commonly affected – just to make it more engaging.
  • Etiology: Fantastic idea linking the words to the glossary – makes it a lot easier to read and the information is very concise. The only issue is the pyrogeny image, although its a great image, there is little explanation. Also there is only 1 reference for the entire section which is a concern.
  • Clinical manifestations: Bullet points are great to see after the 3 extremely word heavy previous sections, but more description is definitely required, a few diagrams or images for the most common or severe characteristics. Well referenced!
  • Diagnostic procedures: Quite liked the drawing, very easy to understand and interesting, but you’re missing the “inspiration” reference to the original image. Again, great linking of words to glossary and the table format is excellent, very informative. Howver this section seems to be much longer than the other sections.
  • Treatment: Could definitely use some pictures and a bit of an overall explanation before the subheadings? You mentioned GH treatment without mentioning what GH stands for.
  • Research: Very interesting and good to see some very recent articles cited.
  • Tex/Image ratio: Already mentioned, some sections need more images.
  • Overall: You’re on your way, fix the image references, make it a little more visually appealing (pictures / colours) and try to make all sections relatively equally informative.

--z3290270 02:40, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Group 1 Peer Review

• Good sub-heading structure and overall text layout.

• The introduction gives a good summary of the abnormality, however a few sentences could probably be worded better.

• A history sub-heading with a timeline would really add to the project.

• Your pictures are really good and they really compliment your page, however I noticed one didn’t have the correct copyright clearance, e.g. the graph ‘Common congenital malformations seen in Turner Syndrome’. Also I think the positioning of all your images would look better on the right hand side and in alignment with the text. The student drawn image is really good!

• In aetiology, I think more references are needed to show that you have done enough research in this area. I like the emphasis on important words, however I think it should be something that flows in the entire page, not only in this section.

• Nice use of tables in the Diagnosis section, however I think if you reduced the size of your images, especially in ‘Postnatal diagnosis’ you would have a neater looking table, not so much white empty space.

• The research area was very informative and very well summarised.

• You have obviously researched this abnormality to a large extent judging by the amount of references you have added, however make sure you don’t double up on references.

--z3289829 02:37, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Review Broad scope of the topic is covered both textually and pictorially. Could possibly use more references at the beginning. Referencing was otherwise entirely suitable, very in-depth. Own diagrams were used; easily understandable. The distribution of information within headings made for very smooth reading; each facet of the topic was introduced in a logical, sequential manner. Inclusion of current and future research was interesting. "Treatment" section may have been ordered better, perhaps in terms of corrections of physical appearance vs. physiological abnormalities. Some errors in grammar and punctuation were noted, but only with directed reading. --z3290689 00:00, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Review for Group 1

  • Punctuation mistake in the introduction where it says ‘the infant, aged 2’. Remove the comma and the sentence will sound better
  • The section in the introduction talking about Xp and Xq doesn’t make sense to first time readers as there is no clarification on what they are. Also in this section Turner syndrome must be spelt with a capital letter
  • Positioning of the Karyotype image is a bit odd. Please decide which section it will clearly fall under. Also it seems to lack the copyright clearance for its use on the page
  • Punctuate this sentence properly: ‘’ 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.’’
  • Information in the second paragraph under Epidemiology seems to me a bit irrelevant to be placed under Epidemiology. Please reconsider this information’s positioning
  • Bar graph seems to be not referenced properly.
  • Having the words linking to the glossary in the etiology section is great. Try to do this throughout your page.
  • The figure in Aetiology on the right side seems to be too large for a thumb and too large for it to have text around it. It would look better of you could make it stand alone in the centre of the page without it being in a thumb.
  • The diagram with the oocyte 22 and sperm 23 equaling to 45 seems to be falling into the Clinical Manifestations section. Please fix this.
  • In the clinical manifestations section, it would be great if the dot points could be explained of how these features arise in your syndrome.
  • The images of the Prenatal Diagnosis table should be explained somehow(on the page itself that is). Readers will not understand what to look for in these images
  • Treatment section is sound and direct. Enjoyed reading it.
  • I like the section about the current research. It gives the readers a feel on the current standing of the research in turners syndrome.
  • After reading the Reference section I realized the references that are used more than once are not being grouped together. Please fix this up as it will look bad on your behalf.
  • Other than that good page, well done.

--Z3291317 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1

Introduction: Good introduction. Clearly explained. An image would be good to accompany some of the text.

Epidemiology: Easy to understand and good images.

Etiology: The picture on the right hand side could be bigger so that it is easier to read and understand. The information is written well but seems a bit disjointed because of where the pictures are placed. Maybe move the one on the left hand side so it doesn’t break up the paragraph.

Clinical manifestations: I think this section would be better in paragraphs with some of the points explained in more detail eg gonadal dysgenesis, hypothyroidism etc.

Diagnosis: The text is good. The table seems a bit overtaken by images. I think it needs some more text to balance it out eg. explain what brachycephaly is.

Treatment: text is good, however, some sections could be explained more clearly eg. what is coarctation of the aorta? This section needs some images.

Current and future research: definitely needs some images to balance out the text.

Glossary: Glossary is good. Maybe put an asterisk next to words in the project that are in the glossary. --z3291324 23:15, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Assessment Group 1-Turner Syndrome

  • The image in the introduction is a bit out of place, it might look better if you do a bit of reformatting
  • The second image in the page leaves a massive gap in the page making it look incomplete
  • The heading "Clinical Manifestations" will look better in the next line instead of starting in the middle of the page, it will make it more distinct as a major heading
  • The list in this section is also quite long, might be a good idea to construct a table-so the idea is visible at a glance with the headings appearing side by side in the columns of a table.
  • The table in "Diagnosis" looks great but takes up a lot of space on the page, maybe reduce the size of the images?
  • The sentence Therefore it is suggested in order to rectify this issue that more education should be given to physicians on the syndrome under the section 'Future Research' is a little off grammatically, maybe consider proofreading this section.
  • Another example is These article evaluate- it should read This article evaluates?
  • Also the future research section does not really talk about future research as such, it is more about implementing a multidisciplinary approach to treatment which should have a more appropriate heading like 'Improved Approaches to treatment plans' or something.

--Tahmina Lata 21:36, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 1:

•The links to the glossary are useful and a good idea, however they need to be used throughout the whole project and not just in certain sections so that it is consistent.

•The student drawn image of maternal serum sampling does not contain the correct copyright information. You need to include the correct template in the information for this image.

•The information is easy to understand and well structured although care is needed in some of the wording and grammar used. For example in the introduction, sentences such as “Each person who has turner syndrome all vary in their clinical phenotype” need to be reworded.

•Also consistency is needed in the capitals you use with Turners Syndrome, as it changes from this to turners syndrome and Turners syndrome throughout the page.

•There seems to be a good balance between the text and images which is good to keep the reader’s attention. Just be careful with the placement of some of the images as it disrupts the formatting and flow of the page.

•Subheading structure is good, though some of the headings such as future research still need to have more information.

•I like the table for Postnatal Diagnosis and I think the images are used well here.

•The referencing needs to be fixed up as many references appear multiple times in the reference list.

--z3332183 21:22, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Assessment

  • Overall the page was good. There were only a few mistakes identified.
  • The Intro was good, it described the disease and gave the reader an idea of what to expect of the page. However, it could do with an image.
  • The graph in the epidemiology section is missing the copyright information.
  • There doesnt seem to be enough referencing in the etiology section. However, this section was good and the links to the glossary are helpful.
  • Clinical manifestions was well set out and easy to read. The use of referencing was good, it shows that a lot of research was done.
  • Postnatal Diagnosis appears to be missing an image in the table.
  • A few of the words in the glossary section are missing their definitions.

--z3292953 20:14, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 1: Peer evaluation

  • The introduction is good because it is brief and concise. Although it would have been good if the page actually introduced the headings that you guys have. It just allows the reader to find out what to expect on your page and if they need particular information they could just jump to that section. Also it didn’t really specify that the disease is a female only disease.
  • The epidemiology section is fine and it lists the general occurrence of the disease. The graph used in the section is very effective in illustrating the observable malformations in the population. If there are more information about the demographics of the disease it would make this section better than what it is already. Some of the criticisms on this section are the use of the karyotyping image. I think the image is a bit out of place and should be placed in another section, and lastly it would also be helpful if some of the terms are defined within the section. The glossary section is good and all but, it just makes reading the page a bit more disjointed. I think the flow of the whole page would be better if the explanations of the terms are done immediately.
  • The etiology section is straight to the point, descriptive and informative as well. The images are used effectively and they relate back to the information given. Only a criticism is the grammar of the section, it could be improved further. For example “When an uneven distribution is such that one of the gametes does not have any of a chromosome…” it doesn’t really flow or make sense. Also if the structuring of the whole section can just be revised a bit and clean up it would be near perfect.
  • The clinical manifestation section is too much of a list; it is not very informative or descriptive at all. Even though each characteristics of the disease were referenced very well and the reader can immediately follow the link as to where more information could be found, it would probably have been preferable if at least the main clinical manifestations were defined and described here and explain how it is actually presented in the patient. Also an image in this section would not hurt.
  • The diagnostic procedure of the page is done pretty well especially the table. The table was very effective and it summarized the basic diagnostic tools needed in the section. My only criticism for this section is that the very last sentence is a bit confusing, if you could just fix that up a bit. There are a lot of concepts being introduced in one paragraph that it becomes very confusing.
  • Treatment section didn’t live up to its name unfortunately. Although there is one subsection (puberty and growth) that was very informative of the actual treatment for the disease, the rest are not very helpful at all. I guess some more research needs to be done for this section of the page.
  • I really like the research part of the page because it tells you that your page is up-to-date and that your research is up-to-date as well. It gives the reader a sense of security that the data used are not old. The use of future research is also a great idea, although would have love to see some of the page creator’s own opinion about the future direction of this page, as it allows the reader to see that the creators of the page are also being critical of the disease.
  • I am not really a big fan of glossaries. Although it is good that you guys incorporated that in the page, I personally am not a big fan of it as it makes the reading of the page a bit disjointed. If it is possible to avoid going to the glossary and just explain some of the words in context, I believe it will make the page much better.

--z3290841 10:19, 29 September 2011 (EST)

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

  • I like the introduction as it has some structure in place, just need to fix up the grammar and adjust some of the sentences as the wording used makes it difficult to read.
  • I like the information in the sub-heading epidemiology, it flows very well, apart from a few grammar mistakes it’s fine in my opinion. The graph included at the bottom of this subheading however has no copyright info.
  • The image under etiology could be formatted appropriately so that the text included beside it is easier to read. Fantastic use of the links to the glossary. Really, really useful. Best part about this page. How did you do it?!
  • The images included under the sub-headings prenatal diagnosis and postnatal diagnosis are huge, reformatting would help maybes.
  • Glossary is great, good work guys.

--z3331469 06:55, 29 September 2011 (EST)

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 assessment

  • Introduction - sentences are too long, especially the first topic sentence however, overall it was quite informative.
  • Maybe put in the history to the disease ?
  • Epidemiology - the images are not structured properly, it ruins the appearance of the project page. Maybe you could move the first image to the introduction section.
  • Etiology - Good use hyperlinks, however again the images are scattered across the page. A structured layout would make reading the information easy to read.
  • Clinical Manifestations - Due to the image on the side of the heading I missed the entire heading. It would be a good idea to fix it up. It is nice to see lists because they are easy to read and grabbed information from but there were no explanation paragraphs after the list so it just looks like a compilation of brief information. If there were some information in the form of sentences after the points then it would make this section very informative*.
  • Diagnostic Procedures - A suggestion would be to make the sub-headings within the text more prominent because the images in the table make it harder to distinguish the next sub topic. In regards to the table, the use of the images were very good. Maybe you guys could make the images abit smaller though and include another column in the table expanding about the syndrome some more.
  • Treatment - Some of the sub-headings have information that are just one sentence long, maybe you guys could just make the whole section into paragraphs instead if you don't choose to expand on the sub topic.
  • Research - very detailed! I like it, it is listed in a nice fashion AND has a nice explanation on the side!
  • The glossary looks good but for referencing there is a problem of double, even triple referencing the same paper.

--z3330313 19:17, 28 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”.


Group 1

*The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. All main points are there and are relevant. Content on pathogenesis might be useful when used together with clinical manifestations so it allows the reader to understand why some things happen.

*The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. More information on history would be good other wise everything else looks ok. Well researched but perhaps a bit more information about clinical manifestations would be good.

*Content is correctly cited and referenced. Fix up duplications on reference list. reference for Nonisjunction.jpg and Karyotype.jpg should be fixed up.

*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. Student drawn image provided - explanations on images are relevant to content.

*Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. Explanation on how some of the main symptoms manifest would be better to demonstrate significant research done.

*Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. Good content on how it occurs during faulty division.

*Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. The page has been developed more or less in accordance with the above guidelines.

--z3329495 21:06, 28 September 2011 (EST)

--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

With the etiology could ive tried placing the images in the section. but could not get it in its right position.

All the images on pub med have not open access to it. They all need request permissino to reuse. Did anybody find any images on turner that actually says open access on it?

guys im not sure i can put a couple of images on the section that i uploaded cos the whole copyright thing. should i delete it? im not sure i can find another image to replace it? would that be fine with u guys or should i just leave it? im just worried we going to be penalised if i cant find a re-usable comment for it.

Hey thanks for fixing the referencing bit i was about to have a go at it but I guess its been done :)

Should I add more info to my section or what you guys think? I am just going to go through the peer reviews and go from there.

--z3060621 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EST)


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

Concerning Discussion Contributions

As far as the discussion goes, we have e-mailed back and forth on several occassions. Also, students z3391078 and z3060621 have spoken on numerous occassions via Facebook chat because it gives instant feedback and constant conversation. Proof of these can be given upon request. --Ashley Smith 11:20, 6 October 2011 (EST)

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)