Difference between revisions of "Talk:2011 Group Project 10"

From Embryology
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
==Group Discussion Week 10-12==
 
==Group Discussion Week 10-12==
 +
Hey ladddiiess :)
 +
Are we all cool for tomorrow?
 +
Still meeting straight after lecture?
 +
message me if any problems :)
 +
ASH
  
 
Hey guys, so I tried researching information on Dr W J Little and there's nothing much I can write about him that relates to DMD. This doctor was just one of the earlier men in history that first accountered the disease & he briefly described it as a disorder.  
 
Hey guys, so I tried researching information on Dr W J Little and there's nothing much I can write about him that relates to DMD. This doctor was just one of the earlier men in history that first accountered the disease & he briefly described it as a disorder.  

Revision as of 17:28, 12 October 2011

Group 10: User:z3332327 | User:z3332629 | User:z3332824 | User:z3330313

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 Discussion Week 10-12

Hey ladddiiess :) Are we all cool for tomorrow? Still meeting straight after lecture? message me if any problems :) ASH

Hey guys, so I tried researching information on Dr W J Little and there's nothing much I can write about him that relates to DMD. This doctor was just one of the earlier men in history that first accountered the disease & he briefly described it as a disorder. And thanks for adding the utrophin part to the table!! I was thinking it would be nice to add an internal link to our "Important Current Research - Utrophin" section, I've been trying to do it for the past 15mins & I can't seem to figure it out. Do any of u guys know how to do it? If not I'll ask Mark tomorrow. Jo

--z3330313 03:12, 10 October 2011 (EST)


Hey Rhiannon!

Ash here. Just read over your section and just have a few pointers or suggestions :)

“this includes skeletal muscles, smooth muscle and cardiac muscle” – maybe this could be written as just: this includes skeletal, smooth and cardiac muscle”.

“which causes many problems” – which can cause numerous implications maybe?

Many of your sentences states something then has a ‘-‘ then gives an example, this sort of seems informal and distrupts the flow of reading .. i personally would suggest using more complete and formal sentences, but just an idea.

These are only suggestions, I am happy if you do leave it the way it is but I know your a perfectionist :)

Let me know what you think

--z3332629 18:11, 9 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys,

So I've finished my part of the assignment now (WOOOOO!) so if there is anything that I should edit/change, or if anyone needs a hand with anything, then let me know, I'm breezy! *Monica's Geller's voice*

Lisa: my mum just raised an important point for the diagnosis section - are you able to, when you are pregnant, genetically test the baby to see if it is affected? can you see if its actually affected or a carrier? when can you test this? -I think this is an important point, and highly relevant as that is a concern for many people. Do you think you can include this somewhere?

Hope everyone else's parts are going ok,

--Rhiannon Bice 17:39, 7 October 2011 (EST)


Nice drawings!

Just some videos for my section, just placing them somewhere so i know where they are :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOhMLZCvb50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWachrbiU58 --Ashleigh Pontifex 12:01, 3 October 2011 (EST)

Joanna : http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1173204-overview#a0199 Great over view for epidemiology, perhaps a table or some stats would be great in this section :)


- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19834452 -

hey guys I changed some of the stuff on history, if you think its too much info let me know! I deleted alot of information, and I just can't bring myself to delete more because the stuff remaining now seems so relevant. But let me know what you think! And what do you guys think about putting an image of the Duchenne dude in the history? do you reckon that'll make that section too long? --Joanna Pak 02:56, 5 October 2011 (EST)

Hey Jo! I had a read of the history section and it sounds good. Just an idea, where you've listed Duchenne's definition of the disease, would you prefer if those were added under DIAGNOSIS- clinical or SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS? And we could add an internal link? Maybe that'll cut down your section a bit?

Just a suggested change, i just rearranged the words around a little, dont have to. =)

  • 'Meryon conducted several necropsies and found intact spinal cords which indicated the disease was not from the nervous system.'

Minor edit

  • 'Further microscopic examination of the muscle showed that the muscular fibres broke down and converted into granular, fatty matter.'

--Lisa Xiao 11:38, 5 October 2011 (EST)

Hey Jo its Ash!! It looks heaps better, more straight forward and the table inclusion is great :) Is everyone happy with my student drawn image in the introduction? it is appropriate in this section? Also my table in the genetics section???

And lastly, ive notice that Rhiannon has hyperlinked all glossary terms in her section, is everyone happy to carry that across all areas??? --z3332629 12:29, 5 October 2011 (EST)


Actually one last suggestion jo, maybe change the table colour to teal so that the colour schemme consistent throughout the page :) --z3332629 12:32, 5 October 2011 (EST)

Hey rhiannon! I tried searching for that image of the heart, turns out its not open access. I'll keep an eye out for you though in case i find anything useful.--z3332327 14:03, 7 October 2011 (EST)

--Mark Hill 14:52, 1 October 2011 (EST)

  • History section is all text.
  • Reference list still contains multiple entries for same reference. I also think that a better reference could have been used that a book published back in 1987 (Duchenne Muscular dystrophy), I know for a fact that there are a large number of review articles which could have been used here.
  • Some visual way of showing Epidemiology data perhaps.
  • How about some normal muscle information or dystrophic muscle sections.


--Mark Hill 12:40, 8 September 2011 (EST) There is a backbone here for content to be built upon, but many sections still lack adequate work. I would have expected more by this stage in your work.

  • There are no images added to the project page. I would have thought at least dystrophin gene, mutation hotspots, abnormal muscle, etc.
  • History/timeline - just a single entry and nothing about the entire history of this disease.
  • Epidemiology - why does it occur at this rate?
  • Aetiology - Genetics - you have used a single review source for most of your information, without locating and identifying the research literature.
    • If you intend to use the same reference more than once use the following format (without the wiki): <wiki>[1]</wiki> it will then appear as a single entry in your reference list.
  • Clinical manifestations and complications - fix the sub-sub-heading format, I do not like asterisks and italics, keep it simple.
  • Diagnosis - you could not find a suitable illustration for this point?
  • Treatment: Current and Future Prospects - Future Therapies is currently a list of terms with no adequate descriptions.
  • Minor point - references should appear after the full stops.
  • 2 case studies? get rid of this unless you have something to say here.
  • Where is the student drawn illustration?
  • Glossary - descriptions are inadequate, and in some cases just wrong.

Peer Review

Peer Review

  • The introduction is detailed but a bit “in your face.” It may even be a bit too detailed, going into the pathogenesis of the disorder.
  • History is very detailed, perhaps slightly story-like but enjoyable nonetheless. Could use a picture or two. Sufficiently referenced.
  • Epidemiology is very thorough and well referenced.
  • The tone of Aetiology/Genetics is a bit conversational; needs to be more detached. Good use of picture, although the legend to it is not in the correct format.
  • Pathogenesis could use more references, especially for the last paragraph. Could potentially use some pictures to make clearer the specific structures discussed in the text (although they are elaborated on in the glossary).
  • All the signs listed in Clinical Manifestations etc are decently elaborated upon, and the section is well-referenced. Smooth Muscle has strange “&&&” signs though. Respiratory Problems needs cleaning, notably with the line “[Effects of high CO2 and the problems it can cause]”
  • Diagnosis is nicely laid out, although more references are needed.
  • Treatment is decently set up and clearly explains each of the treatment plans.

--z3290689 14:44, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10: This project looks fine but it seems a little short? You want to expand the content in sections. History is well researched but it’s quite long. You can add more images (add the reference in the description) and make the dates in Bald. There are some spelling errors and extra signs that are not related to the work such as &&&. Some of the references are repeated and others need to be reformatted. Overall, Great effort.

--z3284061 11:51, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment

  • introduction is well written and descriptive. Good use of image to make it look appealing. No references in the first paragraph.
  • History section is too long, text heavy and a bit boring. Try to summarize the details on a timeline. You can include an image e.g. of Dr Edward Meryon if possible.
  • Epidemiology and aetiology; well written. The image in the aetiology needs to be linked with the text.
  • Pathogenesis; too brief. Needs more information and explanation of the disease process. Include an image or flowchart to compliment the text.
  • Signs and symptoms; needs to be expanded a bit more. I suggest using a table to present the information that just as dot points. Same goes for the diagnosis section, which also needs to be expanded. Try and use more images, tables, graphs etc to break up the texts and make the page look more appealing.
  • I suggest hyperlinking words in the page with the glossary to make the page more user friendly.
  • Like the use of table in the "current and future prospects". It's better to present information like this rather than in big long paragraphs.
  • The glossary needs to be expanded more.

--Z3291622 11:07, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Duchenne (Group 10) Peer Review:

Could you include “Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy” as the first subheading so that the reader knows exactly what the disease is at first glance? Just a suggestion.

Introduction: Topic well introduced and good use of image. Image, however, is lacking a student template.

History: Very extensive. Possibly include an image to break up the text.

Epidemiology: Sound. Some sentences are not worded/ structured properly.

Aetiology – Genetics: Information is good. Impressive self-drawn image. Well done.

Pathogenesis: An image would definitely work well in this section. Information is otherwise good, however possibly have a greater focus on the genetic component?

General Signs and Symptoms of Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy: This section seems too brief. Elaborate further.

Clinical manifestations and complications: Information is good. Possibly more detail for the subheading “smooth muscle.” Image lacks a student template. “&&&” – what is this? Many references in this section which is good to see!

Diagnosis: Could be elaborated further.

Treatment: Current and Future Prospects: The first paragraph lacks referencing. Possibly include an image? Table is a good idea, however colours chosen are slightly off-putting. Glossary of terms: Could be more extensive. Not complete.

Well done. --z3290808 10:50, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy – Group 10

  • Excellent introduction and good use of image. Is there some referencing missing in the first few sentences? Some formatting should be done on the image either to make it within the intro section or more shared between the history sections. Looks a little out of place.
  • History is well written but very text heavy. Use of a timeline good improve this section and make it more succinct. Also I thought an image could be good.
  • Epidemiology seems to cover all necessary information and is well referenced. Maybe an image or graph here could be good.
  • I like the student drawn image in the etiology section, maybe the sizing could be improved though? Also some a more detailed description of what the image shows would also be good.
  • Pathogenesis section is very informative. Maybe the pathophysiology could be covered in this section as well? Image could be added.
  • General signs and symptoms would perhaps look better in a table. Otherwise it is quite brief, maybe some more elaboration aswell.
  • I think diagnosis looks incomplete. Not much detail is given about how the diagnosis actually works. Very little referencing. Addition of an image would improve this section.
  • Treatment looks great. I like how you have included current and future prospects. Just wondering if there was room for a heading for current and future research, as Im sure there is more research being undertaken than just in the area of treatment. This could make this project more informative, and perhaps could be another heading.
  • Glossary needs improving.
  • Some issues with referencing such as multiple entries for the same article and some issues with web page referencing.

--Z3288196 10:48, 29 September 2011 (EST)

GROUP 10: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

  • Title of the whole page should just be Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, not Introduction...
  • The intro is very descriptive and comprehensive
  • Image in intro needs proper referencing
  • consider rephrasing this sentence "In DMD the protein dystrophin is not produced, when it is an important structural component for muscle tissue during contraction"
  • History has good info, but could this be better formatted in a table? this section is text heavy and could maybe use an image, it also could be extended into more recent years
  • Epidemiology is summarised well and contains good statistics
  • I feel that Aetiology - Genetics section has good info, easy to understand and informative but maybe it could be researched a little more
  • General Signs and Symptoms of Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy section needs a lot more work, the list of symptoms i don't feel is enough, more expansion on these is needed. An image would improve this section too
  • "diarrhoea&&&." -this needs to be fixed

Overall:

  • More images are needed to break up the text
  • glossary needs a bit more work, consider linking glossary words to text
  • I feel that the page overall needs some more work, some sections are lacking content
  • Proof reading to fix grammar and sentence structure

--z3331556 10:44, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

This wiki still feels like what Mark Hill mentioned earlier, like a backbone for content to be built upon. The foundations are there, but still very incomplete. Comparing the sections, some have done a lot of effort, others not so much, and it is very visible.


  • Should start the wiki with this code:

<wiki>=Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD)= </wiki>

then

<wiki>==Introduction == </wiki>

  • History is far too text heavy and it shouldn't be like that, as this makes it a chore to read. A timeline would be better suited and summarise into the timeline.
  • Should be more student drawn images, since there's only one. If getting pictures is hard to find, then draw your own.
  • The one student drawn image is not referenced correctly, needs the disclaimer info.
  • Diagnosis needs to be expanded. There is 300+ articles, there has to be more info or an image to be found.
  • Pathogenesis needs to be expanded, maybe an image.
  • Signs and symptoms need more referencing. Also, just leave the title as Signs and Symptons.
  • Treatment needs to be expanded on. It isn't any good just listing drugs into a table.
  • Split the Treatment to include Managment and give a separate section for Current Research.
  • Glossary is incomplete.


--z3293267 10:37, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10:

Clear and conscise but still needs more work breaking up the long slabs of writing. Perhaps more subheadings esp. in the first sections.

More pics are needed to break up the work.

Treatment includes a good table.

Glossary needs a bit of work and expanding on the explanations.

References needs to be fixed as there is duplications of references.

z3332178 =]


Peer Review

Some places for improvement.

  • Double spacing of paragraphs looks awkward.
  • History section would benefit by placing the information into a timeline rather than paragraphs as it is a bit hard to follow.
  • Epidemiology section could be expanded and written in more flowing way rather than long sentences.
  • Needs more images, lots of large blocks of text. And images need to be formatted into the text as formatting currently looks awkward.
  • Further Research could be added, for example papers or groups that are researching as currently it is just being referred to.
  • Glossary could be expanded.
  • References need to be fixed. There are many that are just a web address. Full citation is needed. Double ups need to be fixed. Also perhaps research from MORE sources is necessary as there is only a few when you cut out the double references.

--z3217043 10:02, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 10 Peer Review

  • Headings are well organised and structured
  • Too much text in history section-a table or image would be good
  • Information is there however images/graphs/tables would help break up large chunks of text
  • Diagnosis seems brief-perhaps merge with treatment section?
  • Signs and symptoms could be expanded
  • Great table in treatment
  • Needs to be proof read-grammar and spelling mistakes
  • Double referencing
  • Glossary needs to be extended

--Fleur McGregor 09:54, 29 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10

  • Introduction – Great intro, well referenced apart from the first paragraph.
  • History has a lot of text, a timeline could work well here and also an image if possible just to break up the text.
  • Epidemiology – well referenced and structured, text could be broken up but that’s nothing major as it’s a small section.
  • Aetiology – A link between the image provided and the text would work well, and also the image could be formatted on the right of the page, to add to continuity and flow as other images are located on the right.
  • Signs and Symptoms – Needs to be more information here, a description of each symptom and maybe its direct causes.
  • Clinical manifestations – need a link between the image and the text, other than that it is well referenced and easy to understand.
  • Treatment – table formatting is great and information is helpful
  • Glossary – needs to include more terms form the page.
  • There’s some doubling up in the reference section that needs to be fixed, other than that good job.

--z3331469 08:25, 29 September 2011 (EST)

peer review:


  • Intro: One of the very few groups to use an image of the disease in the intro, well done! Like how you have referred to Duchenne’s as DMD in brackets initial heading to avoid confusion.
  • History: A lot of writing, no techniques to break it up, which will basically bore your reader. Use a timeline perhaps.
  • Epidemiology: Subheading will benefit this segment.
  • Aetiology: The image could use some colour, but it is still very well done. It would be worthy to refer to the drawing as your explaining the genetics, just to bring them together.
  • Pathogenesis: Very brief, not very informative and lacking subheadings or an image. Hopefully this will be fixed.
  • Signs and Symptoms:Poorly done. Dot-points are a good way to initiate the writing but not appropriate as a final copy. Needs more description and research.
  • Clinical manifestations:

The image used is excellent but needs more explanation.

  • Diagnosis:Very short, looks incomplete and there’s only one reference for the entire section.
  • Treatment: Well done, I like the colour and the table structure, makes it much easier to understand.
  • Glossary: Incomplete, much more terminology has been used.
  • References: Double referencing is a big problem here.
  • Text:image ratio: could use more images.

--z3290270 02:16, 29 September 2011 (EST)


  • history should be broken up with dates on side or within a table.
  • how about a short summary table to use for epidemiology
  • no picture of Guillaume Benjamin Amand Duchenne?
  • no copyright permission for the drawn image in genetics.
  • pathogenesis seems very small for a section that is very important.
  • describe how the signs and symptoms impact on patients to show the significance of the disease.
  • diagnosis needs a lot of work, this section is very important. also very little references in this section.
  • not enough pictures to accompany the text
  • very short glossary
  • multiple references of same articles

--Jasjit Walia 00:17, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review for Group 10

  • The introduction was well written, however the picture in it is not referenced as instructed. Please fix that then your intro is perfect.
  • In the history section, the first sentence is oddly placed, even though it’s informative, please put that somewhere where it will flow in the paragraph.
  • The history is verbose, please re write so it’s easier to follow.
  • Epidemiology needs to be reevaluated as some sentences are not constructed properly
  • Etiology has sound information but the paragraphs are not structured so it flows. It also seems repetitive.
  • The picture in the etiology can have its caption better structured
  • Pathogenesis should include some component of genetics to explain how the abnormalities bring about the pathogenesis in the genetics level.
  • Explanation of how the signs and symptoms comes along from the dystrophy should be explained
  • The image of the spine is not completely referenced as url of the image and the page must also be given
  • Information under ‘respiratory problems’ and smooth muscle needs some reviewed as it includes words there that shouldn’t be present
  • The diagnosis section could be expanded upon so it includes more information on the details of how it is detected, and images should complement the tools to diagnose the condition.
  • An introduction to the table should be given. Having the table there by itself doesn’t look good.
  • Further explanation should be made on the type of physical activity that would be made for therapy
  • Glossary should be expanded
  • There is repetitive referencing; it should be reformatted to fit in the way multiple references is made.
  • You need much more pics as without the pics the page looks word heavy.

--Z3291317 23:57, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 10

Introduction: Good introduction. The picture could be a bit bigger. Also, a picture of the chromosome would be great.

History and epidemiology: Both sections are clear and flow well. Pictures are needed to break up the text though.

Genetics: The image is great and the text is well written.

Pathogenesis: The pathogenesis is well explained. Again, pictures would be good in this section to improve it.

Clinical manifestations: Good section. Clear, easy to understand.

Diagnosis: This section might need some more detail added. You could explain how each of the diagnostic tests work

Current and future treatment: This section is worded well but looks a little bit disjointed. I think it would be better having it either all in text or all in the table. --z3291324 23:27, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10 Peer Review

  • Interesting introduction, with a good amount of information. The history is also quite well outlined, although as you have no doubt seen with many of the other groups by now, a timeline woud be adequate in the history section (this also helps to break the text up and help us get a "break" from large blocks of text!)
  • Epidemiology section is short but sweet - all the required information is there and summarised well. Perhaps mention the rate of mortality? (although this may be obvious)
  • The student-drawn image in the aetiology section doesn't have your own copyright notice, so this should be added to the description. There also might be more to write in this section, but only if you wish to seek out the information. Diagrams can be helpful in summarising excessively detailed material.
  • Pathogenesis simply needs to be longer; a lot can be written on this section and there should also be the use of diagrams throughout. Explain why the pathogenesis of DMD is so destructive; it has more than just the function of securing the sarcolemma to the cytoskeleton and is also present in other parts of the body, so make sure you explore this completely! :) (for example, dystrophin which is affected also is found in different areas of the body which may help explain some of the other symptoms of DMD).
  • General signs and symptoms could have a diagram to assist in the signs and symptoms.
  • Clinical manifestations and complications could have more written and explaining some of the other symptoms that aren't purely based upon the muscle damage observed in DMD.
  • Diagnosis needs to have more written, especially images regarding the methods of imaging and therapy.
  • Treatment; and Current and Future Prospects are different sections and shouldn't be integrated. Think carefully about the implications that current and future directions of research will have on this disease - they are huge! Try to write more and make an individual section on current and future prospectives of research for DMD; as you know from your research so far, DMD is a very important disease requiring a lot of research.
  • Glossary is incomplete; References have a lot of repeats, but these are problems that are common to almost all projects.
  • Generally, you just need to find better ways of altering the information in your project. Try to add tables and images to help break up the information and make sure you've discussed all the sections in the guidelines for the project properly. Keep at it! :) There are also some obvious typos (&&&)?

--Leonard Tiong 22:29, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 10:

•History might work better in a timeline, just to break up the text as the beginning of the page looks a little overwhelming with text.

•Make sure that all of the student drawn images have the correct copyright information. You need to make sure you have the correct template for all of the uploaded images.

•The different sections seem to be a little inconsistent, where a few of the sections such as diagnosis and treatment seem a little vague. These sections could be expanded on to give the reader a more comprehensive knowledge of what is involved, especially seeing as the diagnosis section only has one reference.

•Some typos in the smooth muscle section - ‘&&&’

•A lot of the references are repeated multiple times – this should be fixed up so that each reference only appears once. And also not all the references seem to be formatted correctly.

•Glossary is incomplete

•Overall, good use of subheadings though some of the sections need to be expanded and a few more images are needed to add a better balance to the page. Good work so far.

--z3332183 21:33, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10

*The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. All main points are there. Content is decent in some places and lacking in others. Fixing up problematic areas would be good.

*The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. Maybe include a time-line in history? General Signs and Symptoms of Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy section is very poor. Getting information from an insurance website is not actual research. please consider re-doing this section with sources cited from a peer-reviewed paper. Signs and symptoms should go with diagnosis as it is part of making a diagnosis. why are there ampersands in Smooth muscle section?

*Content is correctly cited and referenced. Fix up references, some are simply links and they repeat.

*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 image is drawn well, explanation could do with a bit more work though. File:Normal control muscle (a) vs. Duchennes muscular dystrophy muscle (b).jpg needs proper citation, also there isn't many images. Try including more images.

*Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. Not as much information as i was expecting and references is not as extensive as other pages - but good in-text citation (with the exception of some places such as diagnosis and Respiratory problems), it shows that the information has come from somewhere. Information from an insurance website is not evidence of extensive research so try to fix it.

*Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. No connection to embryology - try linking genetic defects to problems in the neonate, or even if there is a prenatal test.

*Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. Some evidence of developing the wiki page with the guidelines. Will benefit from changing some things.

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

Group 10: Peer Assessment

  • Your page is relatively short overall and could use some more pictures, especially in the first few sections.
  • You have forgotten to put a title on you page
  • The introduction is good
  • You have got quite a bid of text in the history section, may be you can make a bid lighter with a time line?
  • Epidemiology is nice to read and relevant
  • Signs and symptoms belong into the clinical manifestation section
  • Diagnostics could be more in detail
  • The green and blue in the table is a bid too much colour all on a sudden. May be you can have some more colour overall or do the table in just one colour?
  • It would be great to have more terms in the glossary
  • I would put the diagnosis section right after pathogenesis
  • Overall you have got good information on your page. May be you can work on the overall structure and some references. --z3279511 17:15, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10

  • Introduction: well done
  • History: lots of information, some parts have no references, subheadings and a time line would be advantageous
  • Epidemiology: good contend
  • Aetiology: the contend seems fine, but more structure would be good
  • Pathogenesis: looks good
  • Signs and symptoms: that’s more like a list that a section, maybe combine it with manifestations
  • Manifestations: well done, except for smooth muscle- seems incomplete?
  • Diagnosis: you could add more information and details
  • Treatment: the heading seems inappropriate, separate treatment and research, the contend could be more explained
  • Glossary: is incomplete
  • More images would be nice

--Z3387190 14:28, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10

  • Very poor image/text ratio – you need more images to break up the text
  • Good intro
  • History would work better in a timeline- you also mention nothing after the 1800s, more recent findings need to be included
  • An image would be nice for pathogenesis to help the reader follow
  • Not sure why you have made signs and symptoms a different heading to clinical manifestation- these could be combined
  • Diagnosis is very brief and needs to be extended
  • Glossary needs to be added to
  • Maybe add a current research heading


Comments on Group Project 10

Strengths:

  • The flow of the page is smooth with appropriate placement of the various headings.
  • Clinical manifestation section looks really decent without appearing too verbose but yet sufficient information is given.
  • The last image has correct referencing and the copyright statement is also included.

Weaknesses:

  • Some of the references are not formatted properly. There are also a couple of duplications under References.
  • Glossary is not complete.
  • The formatting for the overall page is not as consistent as it can be.

Specific corrections:

  • Maybe it would be better to have a heading for the genetic condition just on its own and not put it with the introduction heading.
  • Maybe future treatments can come under a new heading “future research”?
  • It will be good to elaborate more on current treatments.
  • Diagnosis can be more detailed.
  • Include a timeline under history to summarise that section.
  • The copyright statement that allows wikiusers to use the student image after 6 months is not included.

--Z3389806 07:04, 27 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10 Peer assessment

  • Heading order needs to re-arranged and done properly with diagnosis above before signs and symptoms.
  • Introduction done sort of well needs to integrate image as an example of the myofibres.
  • History rather bulky with too much text and no image, image of the founder would be fine. Also no time line present of DM needs to be added
  • Epidemiology seems rather empty, images would benefit this section also more stats, further expansion of sub headings would also do well for this section
  • Genetics aetiology needs to be expanded where seems to be cramped, though usage of image needs to be noted
  • Pathogenesis needs images and further information
  • Signs and symptoms needs to be expanded and image of some signs or tables
  • Clinical manifestation done well with image and further sub-headings
  • Diagnosis requires more attention with further methods of detection of DM
  • Treatment is well done with the usage of the table
  • Glossary needs to further expanded also linked to the pages so easy to follow the page
  • References are not complete with links and repeats of the references

z3332250 23:59, 26 September 2011 (EST)


Group 10 Critique

  1. • The introduction was very good. Good use of images to give it a little decoration!
  2. • History is good
  3. • Epidemiology is good, however if possible try and make it longer/ include more information
  4. • The Genetics section is a bit too short. Add more information. Good hand drawn image!
  5. • Pathogenesis is a little short. Needs more information
  6. • Signs and Symptoms is good
  7. • Clinical manifestations is ok
  8. • Diagnosis, treatment and glossary are all well written. These sections should not require any change

--Robert Klein 16:27, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 10 Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

  • The first paragraph of the introduction has no reference.
  • The paragraphs in history are quite long, often with grammar mistakes, incorrect punctuations and many of the ideas within a sentence separated by a -. For example the second last paragraph within history.
  • The history is too verbose, a timeline with bullet points will look better
  • Aetiology is quite concise and informative however gramatical errors are a distraction. For example There a multiple forms of dystrophin. It might be a good idea to proofread the page.
  • Well done with the student drawn image
  • 'Pathogenesis' is again well written however an image might have given it a balance between the text in the section and the pictures or tables
  • The future therapies table is a little confusing, you might want to add more columns and define the therapy, and then discuss what the challenges and findings are and at the end column finish off with what the implication might be if the research is to be completed successfully. At the moment you have discussed all that in one big paragraph and the way the descriptions start, it sounds like there is no background to the description, just a little abrupt.
  • The glossary is very short and you should include terms like de novo mutation.
  • The existing definitions are unclear and incomplete

Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

  • Make sure you add a proper heading for the page, so it doesn't just start with 'Introduction'
  • The 'Introduction' is a good start to the page, very easy to read and understand
  • 'History' is a bit difficult to read, try to make is sequential order, or at least bold the dates
  • In 'History' we don't really want a story, but key dates in the history of the discovery of the disorder. Surely something has happened in the past 150 years?
  • Good work with 'Pathogenesis', it is a good description of the development of the disorder
  • Can we see an image relating to the signs and symptoms?
  • 'Clinical Manifestations' is a good thorough description, though I don't understand what going on with the last section 'Smooth Muscle' with the random &&&. It is also a whole lot more general than the preceeding sections. Is it finished?
  • Could you give a bit more detail in 'Diagnosis'. It would be good to explain each method a bit more and explain why they are relevant.
  • Can you expand on the table a bit? ie P188, what exactly is it used for? How does it treat it? How effective is it? When is it administered etc
  • No current research section? This could be a good conclusion to the page - the 'Stem Cell Transplant' section from 'Treatments' would fit better here
  • The glossary needs to be finished and expanded on
  • Overall the page is not bad, but more images are needed and some clarification on topics


Group 10-

  • Need more images to break up the text
  • The introduction was really easy to read and had relevant information in it
  • History should be in bullet point form to make it easier to access or at least have the dates in BOLD
  • Does the history include dates after the 1800s? or did all research stop then?
  • Epidemiology was good. Had all the relevant info
  • Pathogenesis would benefit an image or a diagram
  • Signs and symptoms could be put with clinical manifestations.
  • What is the point of the ‘&&&’? in clinical manifestations and complications?
  • Diagnosis could be expanded upon to explain how and why these methods work
  • Treatment could also be expanded on. A list of drugs doesn’t explain much
  • There is not current/future research section
  • This is a good start to the project but more research needs to be done


Group 10

  • The structure and use of headings and subheadings is good, make sure you title your page.
  • Good info very informative and it gives a good overview to DMD.
  • HIstory has a lot of text could you use a timeline here?
  • i think a picture of the pathogenesis would improve this section.
  • Has your group look at the CNS and cognitive function of DMD boys its a controversial area as many people have different attitudes towards this but Dr Stewart Head a UNSW lecture actually studies DMD and is very informative in the area and recently published a article in the journal Brain.
  • The CNS is highly affected by the lack of dystrophin as well as GABA receptors. I think this area is very import to consider as it highly affects the boys at school.
  • Could you add some pictures to your page or break it up with the use of more tables as it a lot of text in comparison to pictures and tables.
  • Make sure your reference list is not doubled.
  • Ensure all your pictures are referenced properly.
  • Student image is present.
  • This is a good start.

Group 10 Assessment

  • The history is a bit wordy… Maybe consider consolidating the information into a table format for ease of reading. Could also use a picture to add to it.
  • The Epidemiology section could also use a picture and maybe some more information, if possible.
  • Point vs Frameshift mutation jpg: Good drawing, but in the last portion of the picture the product is labeled as a ‘tunicated protein product.’ Isn’t it supposed to be a ‘truncated’ product?
  • The Signs and Symptoms section could use some formatting; it just looks rather dull currently. Maybe a chart or add in a picture?
  • Smooth muscle section: Why are there random &&&’s?
  • The top portion of the Treatment section could use some more referencing… Good chart though! Only thing I’d suggest for it is to add some pictures if possible?
  • Glossary term list is rather short… Are you sure there’s nothing else that needs defining for clarification for the reader?
  • It would be a good idea also to have the glossary terms linked with the words in the wiki page, so that the reader can easily get access to the word in the glossary.
  • Some of the references are repetitive. Make sure to fix this so they all link to a single reference instead of numerous ones of the same resource.
  • For the references given throughout the wiki, there isn’t any consistency in how the [#] is given. The [#] is sometimes right after the sentence, sometimes a space is given between the sentence and citation number, and the end of the sentence (period or comma) is sometimes before or after the reference #...
  • Overall, good information is included, just work on referencing things and the overall structure and you should be good!

--Z3391078 17:00, 27 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Assessment: Group Project 10

  • I think the section heading of introduction accompanied by the question what is muscular dystrophy, works really well.
  • It might be good to include an image in the history section to break up the text, such as of someone prominently involved with the disease findings.
  • The information in clinical manifestations and complications is well written. There needs to be some fix to the formatting under the smooth muscle heading where some '&'s have been repeated.
  • The current and future prospects section is great. You have summarised what
  • Some of the definitions of words in the glossary need to be completed e.g. atrophy and protease.
  • Under the information in some of the images such as the fisrt one, you still need to add {{Template:2011 Student Image}}.
  • Some of the references are duplicated. They can instead be linked together using the 'multiple instances on a page' editing guidelines: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=References#Multiple_Instances_on_Page.
  • An additional section of external links might provide information for those wanting to know more.

--z3217345 10:50, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • struture and format done well
  • easy to read

--z3060621 21:58, 28 September 2011 (EST)


  • Intro: Fine
  • History: Nicely detailed, but missing a timeline.
  • Epidemiology: Seems fine, though you might wanna mention that the daughter of an affected male will automatically become a carrier. Or do males generally not survive til reproductive age?
  • Aetiology - Genetics: Could do with a little bit more detail on the actual genetics/mutations, how they occur, if it is known why they occur, what effect it has.
  • Pathogenesis: Content seems fine, could do with a figure?
  • General Signs and Symptoms of Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy: Not sure I'd give this it's own subsection - maybe put it under the next one?
  • Clinical manifestations and complications: Fine
  • Diagnosis: Clinical Diagnosis is a bit short?
  • Treatment: Current and Future Prospects: Poor. Treatment needs expansion. The table doesn't give much detail.
  • Where's the current research section? Surely you could use at least some bits of the future prospects for treatment for this.
  • Glossary: Poor. More terms need explanations.
  • General: The content is rather superficial. It is a very small page? Surely there must be more information available. Also, more figures are needed.

Discussion

GROUP 10!

To make everything easier to follow, we have agreed to write any updates, info, discussion etc at the BOTTOM of this page, it will just stop us having to keep going up and down and wasting time trying to find the information we want.




Hey Everyone,

So Mark went through each group today during the lab and the webpages and discussed where we should be up to. By next week, he expects the subheadings & some content to be up and running. He also recommended that we should have some more research going on in our discussion page. E.g. Research articles links, interesting sites etc.

Topics have been allocated so please begin your research and typing up some content. We can further divide our headings if necessary, take a look at some other groups, they have some pretty good ideas. Mark will be checking this next week during our lab. He'll be coming around to each of us.

So hopefully see you all next week !

--z3332327 12:53, 25 August 2011 (EST)

Subheadings for assignment

Intro what is DMD

History/timeline

Genetic component

Why is it an abnormality - Symptoms effect

Diagnosis, future/current prospect (treatments?)

2 case studies

Glossary of terms

Post online any preferences you may have in terms of the topics you wish to research and by Sunday we will allocate sub topics

--z3332629 13:09, 18 August 2011 (EST)


Okay hey guys just to get the discussion going, umm I don't mind doing the first 2 on the list. And the "Why is it an abnormality - Symptoms effect" sounds pretty interesting as well. What are your preferences?? :)

--z3330313 14:55, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Hey Everyone, Im happy to do the diagnosis/current/future prospects point and a case study.

--z3332327 15:36

  1. <pubmed>21810612</pubmed>