Talk:2011 Group Project 2

From Embryology

Group 2: User:z3279511 | User:z3288196 | User:z3288729 | User:z3288827


--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

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  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.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  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.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Figure Assessment

Page Edits 30 Sep


I have DiGeorge and DGS to DiGeorge Syndrome for all of us. This way there is a better flow through the page. Great work guys. i think our page looks great. --Anna Marx 21:02, 2 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, just a couple of things. If you have a look at the reference section for 1-4 and a couple around reference 50, they are just links - is there no better way to present the referencing for these sections? Just went through it one last time, it looks really good. If those sections still have strange references I can try to fix it up later. --Leonard Tiong 12:11, 10 October 2011 (EST)


Think i have taken care of most of the issues with my sections. Added a heap to the glossary, rephrased and restructured some of my writing, also managed to include a couple more images :) All my referencing should be good now aswell, checked it all and seems to be in order. Still looks to be some issues with the referencing for some of the other sections, I will try fix this later if it hasnt been done already. Just off to work now, but will have another crack at this later tonight, read the project as a whole and take care of any last minute overall edits if neccessary. Looking excellent though. Think we have taken care of most of the feedback.

--Timothy Ellwood 17:18, 5 October 2011 (EST)

Hey Guys. Sorry for not getting onto this sooner, i thought we had another whole week to get this final edit done but was obviously mistaken. Didnt get to catch up seeing as i missed last weeks lab, but looks like all the review information is quite positive. A couple of mentions that the etiology section didnt flow/read that well, so will have a look at this today. A few edits to the final research section also. Will complete the glossary and ensure references are all good, then do a final read of this and see if there are any other issues. --Timothy Ellwood 12:01, 5 October 2011 (EST)

Hi Leonard, it's actually hard to find good pictures that are actually useful. I had the same problem for the treatment section. I like your pictures but I guess if you wanted to you could draw them again with straight line or so... ;) But it's a bid hard to make them all happy anyway. I had about 75% of people saying that the table in clinical manifestations is really informative and great and 25% said it's to text heavy. I would say 75% win... Anna

Hi, does someone know how I can change my table in clinical manifestations in the way that there is a space in between each section? --Anna Marx 16:23, 2 October 2011 (EST) Hi Anna, not too sure but if you check in the shortcuts section with editing basics then you might be able to find something in there that'll help. I'm going to add all my words to the glossary and fix up my referencing now! In general I think we got pretty good reviews, just take heed of what the people said and we'll finish up :) --Leonard Tiong 17:05, 2 October 2011 (EST) Hi, yeah I couldn't find the trick in the shortcut tut. But it should be ok just like that....

btw guys i can't actually find an image/graph for the epidemiology section and that's one of the things that a lot of people have commented on. have you found anything in your research that has something like that that I could use? Thanks guys--Leonard Tiong 17:14, 2 October 2011 (EST) hey all, just finished doing my sections for the glossary linking and fixing of the references. Just read through each of your sections again to make sure that your sentence structure all make sense, alright? I'll do the duplicated references later, going to take a break from this now. by the way, if it's possible, can anyone help me with my two pubmed reference between 46 and 52? I have the formatting of the pubmed reference correct but it's not working in the reference section.

Thanks guys :) --Leonard Tiong 18:36, 2 October 2011 (EST)

hey doubled references havent been fixed up?? I will do it now... also tim did u hyperlink your glossary words?? if not i will do that now too --Sarah Jenkins 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EST)

references fixed. I am pretty sure i got all the doubles but not 100% so if you guys could go through and double check it would be great. I also fixed up all the blank ones and misformatted ones. --Sarah Jenkins 20:45, 5 October 2011 (EST)

The Final Fix up

hey not sure what you guys think but what if we take the advice we got on our own sections and focus on fixing them up? I can go through and link the terms to the glossary if someone else wants to fix up the references?

Hi, sounds like a good idea! Will do my part over the week end. anna

Group 2 Critique:

  • What Can I say, well researched, nicely sub headed.
  • Historical Background shows amazing work. The only 2 things I noticed are the “ 22q11 is in purple” is that on purpose? And the second thing is the image has a source but no reference.
  • Epidmiology and Etiology may need some images to balance the words. Also, some spacing between the paragraphs would make it more readable.
  • Nice illustration via drawings in the Pathophysiology sections . well structured.
  • This section is well established, it has colours and few paragraphs. You might want to consider the size of images probably into something bigger like (Based on symptoms, Ultrasound) and add one more photo in the last two sections (Amniocentesis, BACS- on beads technology)
  • one of the best sections on this page is Clinical manifestations. Great work on the table. Perhaps more images along with the abnormality would make a more presentable table. Also, you may consider re-phrasing ( the sub-heading “ How it is caused”) into something with one word. Fabulous work on Heart Drawings.
  • in the Section of “ Current and Future research”, allocation of each would be more organised.

The large number of references show how much you guys spent on the page. Some of the references may need to be formatted ( 1,2,3,4,5, etc) note: reference 33,40,47,49, are empty . Overall Great Job. z3284061

Group 2

  • Well researched and set out page
  • An image is needed in either Epidemiology or Etiology would be good
  • Diagnostic section tests section is good, however, images are needed for BAC and Amniocentesis
  • Glossary is well set out, maybe links to the glossary would be helpful
  • Subheadings might be useful in the Current/future research section
  • some of the referencing will need to be fixed such as double references

--z3292953 11:11, 29 September 2011 (EST)

DiGeorge Syndrome (Group 2) Peer Review:

Introduction: Well introduced topic. Picture needs description at bottom. Seems to be referenced appropriately.

Historical Background: Extensive timeline which is good. Try to be a little bit more consistent with the colon – either place it after the date or not. Also, picture seems a bit random and needs to have a description at the bottom so that the reader knows what it encompasses.

Epidemiology: Could be a bit more spaced out to make it easier for the reader to read through.

Etiology: Good information and referencing. Try to include a picture in this section as it would help the reader visualize what you are conveying in words.

Pathogenesis/ Pathophysiology: This section is well done. Information is good and images are well-drawn and also contain a relevant description at the bottom. Well done!

Diagnostic Tests: Very extensive. Great use of images. Could you possible also find an image for amniocentesis and BACS? Some image references are not in the correct format and images in this section need to have a label at the bottom.

Clinical Manifestations: This section is well done as well. Possibly too much information which may overwhelm the reader though.

Treatment: Slight inconsistency with the formatting, but otherwise no major dramas. Also possibly more images needed in this section.

Current and Future Research: This section is quite interesting. Research is extensive and images are good – however, they lack correct referencing format and the student template in the information section.

Glossary: Extensive. Well done.

Overall, good job! --z3290808 10:40, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2:

There seems to be a lot of references, almost an excessive amount.

A picture for epidemiology and aetiology would be good.

Diagnostic tests was done well

Clinical manifestations should include some info on what the normal structure and function of the heart.

There is a very large amount of written information and this is reflected in the reference section that takes up alot of space on the page. There are slabs of writing which makes it hard to read the page. It’s boring to see long slabs of writing. The long glossary reflects the long slabs of writing. It’ll be hard to read through. Its not that clear and concise.

z3332178 =]

Group 2:

  • Intro: the first sentence is a little vague. Rather joining sentence 1 and 2 together and defining congenital disorder and explaining it at the same time would be better. I liked the pictures but the trio in that arrangement left the section looking a little unfinished.
  • Historical background: image is not explained, a little confused as to why it is there.
  • epidemiology: good section, good referencing
  • etiology: its a little awkward in flow as you jump from talking about one study, and after one sentence talk about what another study said. Maybe work on building it into an actual paragraph instead of making them merely sentences.
  • pathogenesis: the images would look better if they were larger so you get the vague image of it at a glance. Good section, flows nicely
  • diagnosis: great section. Layout made it easy to read. Maybe increase the size of the image in the symptoms part, this was harder to see.
  • clinical manifestation: good section. Maybe with the last set of images with the heart, leave a space or include a pink heading like you did for the table above it to indicate another table. This was hard to see
  • treatment: good section. Maybe change the colour of the bit that you highlighted in that pale orange/skin colour thing. It’d be nice to have that stand out a little more so those headings can actually be seen and not seen as random words.

--z3290558 09:55, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer review WOW! This page looks fantastic. The editing is great. All of the information is presented neatly and concisely. However, just look in "historical background" and make sure all of the lines are edited uniformly. Some have ":" some don't. Obviously that is nothing major, I'm just nit-picking. I think you may want to redraw your "pathology of Di George syndrome". It seems quite cluttered.

Overall: Excellent. There really isn't much to say about this page.

--Ziggy Harrison-Tikisci 10:29, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2 peer review

Introduction: Please explain what the images is about.

Historical background: Please be careful that you type 'DiGeorge syndrome' throughout the section. For example, the point about the 1981 event has 'diGeorge syndrome'. There are also some spelling errors. Furthermore, a legend for the image would clarify.

Epidemiology: Breaking up the segments with images will make understanding the content easier for the reader.

Diagnositic test: Information on the ultrasound test, particularly the second paragraph, is repetitive. The layout is great and the images breaks up the text nicely. A legend for the image will be good. In particular, please clarify what is abnormal with the male face.

Treatment: Are 'Hypocalcaemia' and 'Psychiatric illness' a late occuring feature or an observable condition in newborns.

--z3289301 09:42, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • The first three sentences about congenital disease is misplaced. This should be in your glossary, not in your very first sentences.
  • The common symptoms could be left out of the introduction and discussed in the appropriate section.
  • Written like an essay rather than a webpage. Language such as “for example” not necessary.
  • Clinical Diagnosis was well structured and good use of pictures.
  • Clinical Manifestations could be simplified slightly in the table.
  • Some references need to be adjusted rather than just a web address.

--z3217043 08:42, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

This wiki has obviously been given a lot of time and effort and it shows. The text isn't too heavy and I've learnt a few things about DeGeorge Syndrome. Very thoroughly researched and overall, looks and feels very neat and concise. A few points to be made:

  • No need to define congenital disorder. I recommend just leaving it out entirely.
  • Some pictures still need to be captioned even after addressed by Mark Hill. Who is that person in the History section? Angelo DiGeorge? Which one is he?
  • The student drawn images are the let-down. They look very rushed and haven't been given enough effort. The student drawn images on the wiki is also small, so to read the accompanying text by expanding the image, breaks up the flow of reading the wiki. It also hasn't followed the referencing format.
  • BACS- on beads technology image is a pdf file. Either put a picture in the designated area or remove the reference.
  • Amniocentesis doesn't have an image.
  • You should refrain from using the words "mental retardation" as this could be deemed offensive. Use "intellectual disability" as that is a more common term now used in Australia. Also use "learning difficulty" or "developmental delay". We should also encourage the use of person-first language e.g., "a child with an intellectual disability" rather than "intellectually disabled child". This promotes the idea that a person comes before their disability.
  • References section needs attention. Some referencing are not present at all in some casees.

--z3293267 07:12, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2 Peer Review

• Your overall structure and layout of the page is really good! It’s really neat and all the images and text seem to be in proportion.

• All your pictures, graphs and tables show that you have a good understanding of this abnormality.

• The introduction gives a really good summary of the disease, however I think you should introduce the disease first and then go onto to explain ‘congenital disorders’.

• Epidemiology could probably be broken down into sections, to make it an easier read and more interesting.

• The aetiology section needs an image to break up a large amount of text also to make it more interesting and informative.

• Good use of subheadings in the pathogenesis, very relevant! Student drawn images are good, could they be a little neater?

• Diagnostics test is really nice and clear, however consistency with the colour of the tables would be good.

• Clinical manifestations section has really good information, I think it could be structured better though, for example; only have the table describing each sign and symptom and then have another sub-heading related abnormalities where you could include ‘Teratology of Fallot as an example...’ (Just an idea).

• Current future research is obviously researched thoroughly, breaking it down into relevant subheadings would really improve it though.

• Make sure you fix up your repeated references. But good work overall!

--z3289829 02:40, 29 September 2011 (EST)

  • Intro: Great intro, the picture is excellent and grabs your attention. Perhaps don’t start with a definition of congenital disorders. You can put that in the glossary or mention it after you have initially began discussing the disease.
  • History: Love the timeline, clear, easy to follow.
  • Epidemiology: Very word heavy which is not necessary for this section. Dot pints or some sort of visual representation would make it more appealing.
  • Etiolgy: “ mentioned previously it has a prevalence of 1/2000 to 1/4000” This part is not necessary. Image of the gene would look good in this section. You refer to the disease as DGS (which is perfectly fine) but repeatedly refer to it as DiGeorge syndrome in the previous section, which can get a little confusing. Either use its full name or just the abbreviation.
  • Pathogenesis:“As mentioned in the introduction, the pathogenesis of DiGeorge is a 22q11.2 microdeletion” probably unnecessary.

Excellent image, perhaps make it a bit bigger so that you can refer to it whilst reading.

  • Diagnosis: The formatting of the text against it’s visual representation is fantastic and love the use of colour – refreshing! The use of colour can be expanded to the rest of the page to make it more cohesive. There is a an image heading with no image under the “ Amniocentesis” heading. There is also an image missing in the BAC’s image column replaced with a link- should fix this.
  • Clinical manifestations: Once again great use of colour, but VERY word heavy. It shows that you have done a lot of research but it’s a lot to take in, you can definitely make it more compact.
  • Treatment: I quite like this section. It’s informative and is formatted in a way that won’t bore you. The sections which have big blocks of text could benefit from this format. You need to choose a different colour for the block highlights though because you can barely see it.
  • Research: Thorough research, very informative but again too much text. If you feel it’s necessary to keep the text you can break it down with word highlights/ bolding or dot points.
  • Text/image: Great ratio except a few sections where the text can be cut down a little bit.
  • Overall, very thorough, loved the colour and formatting and the student drawn image. Excellent work.

--z3290270 02:37, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review for Group 2

Peer Review

  • Many of the pictures do not have a legend/explanation associated with them. However, the hand-drawn picture is underscored by a legend.
  • The introduction is rather abrupt; definition of "congenital disorder" could have been a simple hyperlink or a note in the glossary.
  • Is the historical background necessary? In the section, the photo of the two people is not explained.
  • Section on epidemiology seems to cross over significantly with clinical manifestations.
  • Thorough referencing throughout. However, some of the references appear strangely in the references section (could be a vestige of that crash a few weeks earlier?)
  • The table in clinical manifestations is strangely.....implied. Section on Tetralogy of Fallot can be cleaned up in terms of layout.
  • Inclusion of current and future research is noted, and well set out/referenced.
  • Glossary is thorough.
  • Overall, a very thorough and broad exploration of the topic.

--z3290689 00:11, 29 September 2011 (EST)

  • I don’t think it would be necessary to start the intro with clarifying what congenital diseases are. It would be better if it starts with, ‘Di George Syndrome is a …’ sentence.
  • In the intro, fix this sentence as it needs punctuation, ‘As there is currently no treatment education is vital to the wellbeing of those affected, directly or indirectly by this condition’
  • Nice picture of Angelo, and also the history is presented well as it makes easy to read and follow.
  • Information presented in the epidemiology section is interesting but not organised properly so it flows. Please fix this up.
  • Etiology has some technical jargon that is not explained or put in the glossary. Please do so
  • Thumb picture of the area where 22q deletion occurred doesn’t show when viewing the page.
  • The first line of the Pathogenesis section is, I believe, not necessary as the section just before it just mentioned that fact.
  • Punctuation needed for ‘ ‘‘TBX1’’ is expressed in early development in the pharyngeal arches, pouches and otic vesicle; and in late development, in the vertebral column and tooth bud’
  • Pathogenesis/physiology easy to read and has good drawn diagram
  • The diagnostics section has good information of how the tool works, what it detects and an image refering to the tool. However Amniocentesis section has no image and yet has a column for it. Please fix this if there is no image for it. Also the Ultrasound section should include what DiGeorge patients would have on Ultrasound scans.
  • It is good that the clinical Manifestations section is presented in that way in the table as it explains the abnormalities really well.
  • The four images in the Tetralogy of Fallot section may make the reader seem that one of these problems may occur, whilst all four problems are present in the TOF heart.
  • The treatment section has information in regards to symptoms. This be under another subheading altogether and not under the treatment section
  • Current and Future Research section provides the reader with a good image of the current status of this disease in regards to research.
  • References are not properly formatted as repetition in the referencing could be seen. Please fix this.
  • Please balance the text to image ratio as the page is text heavy and can be hard to read unless it is complemented with more images.
  • Other than that good page.

--Z3291317 23:46, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2 peer evaluation

  • The introduction is done quite well. It is succinct and brief. You have done a very good introduction to the topics that your page is about to explore. Unfortunately you did fail to introduce some of the headings that your page have, like the diagnostic section. Aside from this it is a good introduction overall.
  • Historical background is done very well. It has enough detail to see the ongoing achievements on the disease.
  • The epidemiology was excellent. You have covered the demography of the disease and properly cited some of the facts that you try to get across. Revision of some of the sentences may be needed because some sentences are not expressed properly. Also it would have been really nice if you could incorporate some of the data that was mentioned in a more summarized form, like a table, dot points, or something. It just makes reading easier and less likely to get lost in the words
  • I really like how concise yet very informative your etiology section. What would make this section better than what it is at the moment is an image that would complement the information, and also a bit of an explanation about some of the terms that is in there, like “hemizygous”.
  • The Pathogenesis section is very well done. It contains enough detail that we get an in-depth knowledge about the development of the disease, and the images that were used are very helpful. One thing that would improve it though is that if you can elaborate further on the function of the TBX1 gene and how affecting the expression of this gene results to DiGeorge.
  • The Diagnostic test section I think is perfect. The way the test works was described, and at the same time they were all related back to how this aids in the detection of the disease. The layout of the information is also very engaging.
  • Clinical manifestation is very nicely done. The information was very descriptive and informative. It is also presented very well. Just one thing though is that there is no clear separation between two clinical outcomes, so it tends to get confusing sometimes when someone is reading it. I guess adding more space between would be a good idea.
  • Treatments section is done quite well. If you could add a video of some of these treatments or even just a link to a video of it that would really make this section perfect.
  • The research section is also very good, especially your insight to future direction of research on this disease. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to drop some current research articles within this section, which shows the readers that the information that they have just read is up-to-date.
  • Glossary is a good idea, not really a big fan of it but good idea anyway.

--z3290841 10:20, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2

Introduction: Introduction is good. The pictures look great.

Historical background: I like the timeline. I think the picture needs a caption underneath explaining who the people are.

Epidemiology: Needs some pictures to break up the text.

Etiology: This section is quite difficult to understand. I think a lot of terms need explaining eg. hemizygous deletion, microdeletion and halpingoinsufficiency.

Pathophysiology: This section is much easier to understand and flows quite well. The pictures should be bigger though.

Diagnostic tests: great section! Good layout and easy to read. The symptoms picture could be a bit bigger and it would be good if there were pictures for the bottom two.

Clinical manifestations: Again, great section. The table could use some more pictures though to balance out all the text.

Treatment: Needs some more pictures.

Current and future research: This section is quite well explained and has a good level of detail. --z3291324 23:18, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2:

•I’m not sure if you need the definition and explanation of congenital disorders at the very beginning of the page. The third sentence beginning with DiGeorge syndrome would make more sense as the beginning of the introduction.

•I like the use of images in the introduction and at the beginning of the page, but they are not referred to in the text and do not include captions. Perhaps you should include a brief caption under each image explaining what the image is portraying and why it is relevant.

•Be careful with the wording of some things, particularly in the introduction, i think some parts need to be edited and reworded as they are a little confusing to read.

•The fact that the timetable in the history goes all the way up to 2011 is good and this section seems to be referenced well.

•The student drawn image of the heart defects do not include the correct template that is required for proper copyright information.

•Good use of tables to break up the text, although the different colours is a bit distracting, i would recommend choosing one colour and using that throughout the page.

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

--z3332183 21:24, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment Group 2-DiGeorge Syndrome

  • The introduction and history look good with great use of images which makes for an interesting start.
  • There could be at least one other picture in 'Epidemiology' and 'Etiology', otherwise it just looks like a big block of text
  • The 'Diagnostic Tests' look good-the image for BACS still need to be uploaded
  • The student drawn images are colorful however doesn't have copyright information-just states who drew them
  • Some sentences seem incomplete or doesn't seem to convey a message e.g. "Once diagnosed, there is no single therapy plan. Opposite, each patient needs to be considered individually and consult various specialists".
  • 'Current and Future Research' has a lot of information however is it possible to condense it and give a basic summary instead. I understand that you have tried to do your best but it is just a lot of information. You might also wnat to consider using sub headings.
  • The references need a bit of attention-you have a lot of links there which need to be changed to proper references

--Tahmina Lata 21:13, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2 Peer Assessment

  • Good introduction. Like the use of the image to grab the reader's attention but it might be a good idea to include one or two sentences in the text explaining the characteristic appearance of the patients and give the image a title (just to link the image to text straightway at first glance without having to click on the image to understand it's significance).
  • Not sure if you need to explain the term 'congenital' in the introduction. Might be better to start straight away on the actual syndrome.
  • Great job on the "Historical background" section. Maybe have small title for the image of Angelo DiGeorge.
  • Good explanations in the 'epidemiology' and 'etiology' sections but the text is a bit too heavy. Try breaking it up with an image.
  • Good use of images, table and the general arrangement and layout of information in the 'Diagnostic test" section. (Small spelling error in section name). Try to include an image in the "Amniocentesis" section as well to complete the table.
  • Needs to explain the link in the "BACS- on beads technology" section and why it has been inserted.
  • Like the student drawings in the 'tetralogy of fallout' section and good explanations of what is happening. Small grammatical error in the title (on instead of an).
  • Good job on the 'treatment' and 'current/future research' sections.

--Z3291622 16:17, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2

  • The whole page is very nicely formatted
  • Introduction is clear and concise although would it be more efficient to start talking about DiGeorge straight away rather then define congenital abnormalities?
  • Historical background is obviously well researched
  • There needs to be an image in epidemiology and/or etiology to break up the text or present some of the information in a table
  • The pathogenesis section flows nicely although a few words need to be added to the glossary
  • Great table for diagnostic tests- this makes it easy to follow
  • A few more pictures would be great for clinical manifestation and maybe this would be better in dot points?
  • Student drawn images of tetralogy of fallot were excellent
  • Subheadings are needed for Current/future research
  • Good project overall, obviously a lot of effort has been put into this.

Group 2 - Peer assessment

  • The introduction is easy to read and understand. Maybe one thing you could improve on is the organization of the paragraphs because it looks abit too choppy as of now.
  • The history looks amazing and well researched AND well referenced! Makes me believe and trust your project even more. Furthermore the picture on the right just makes the section more appealing.
  • Epidemiology - the information flows well and examples are also mentioned which is nice to see
  • Etiology - The information is ok but maybe it could be better explained with explanation of the technical terms within your texts
  • Pathogenesis/Pathophysiology - the student drawn images look amazing! And the organisation of information is good. Maybe a suggestion would be to hyperlink some of the terms in the text because there was alot of technical terms to be scrolling down and up for.
  • Diagnostic Tests - The layout is very appealing and consistent with the rest of the page. The spelling of the heading is wrong!
  • Maybe for the glossary it would be a good idea to include headings such as "A", "B" etc
  • Fixing up double referencing would be a good idea aswell

--z3330313 19:36, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment Group2

  • Epidemiology – hyperlink technical terms to glossary?
  • The pathophysiology/pathogenesis sections (pharyngeal arches onwards) needs to be linked back to the syndrome. You list it in the “genes” section then describe the normal development, but it needs to be described to what happens in the syndrome/abnormal development.
  • Don’t forget to add in the missing images in the diagnostic techniques
  • You have several (excellent) summary tables – I think the format should be consistent in each, would make it look/flow better
  • Typical symptoms: Newborn section can be condensed
  • Current and future research could benefit by being broken up a bit – maybe use subheadings, colour or bold main points – it just is a big slab of text and looks daunting to read.
  • References: some just have the PMID number and need to be fixed so it reads the whole reference (just for consistency)

--z3332824 23:18, 27 September 2011 (EST)

GROUP 2: DiGeorge Syndrome

  • I don't know if the congenital disorder definition is needed in the intro, maybe you can included in the glossary instead
  • The image in the intro could use a legend
  • Info in the intro is comprehensive and informative
  • History section has got good, succinct information and i like the fact that it goes up to 2011, however maybe you can consider putting the timeline in a table. Image could also have a legend
  • Epidemiology has been researched relatively well, info is comprehensive and flows well, however, could be improved with a graph of some sort to accompany info with a visual
  • Etiology contains very descriptive, informative info, could be improved with an image of the chromosome and the area of deletion
  • It would be a good idea if the acronyms are included in the glossary
  • It is evident that the Pathogenesis/Pathophysiology section has been very well researched, maybe the "genes involved in DiGeorge syndrome" section could be formatted in a table
  • The use of a table in Diagnostic tests is succinct and informative. You should check for spelling mistakes (Dianostic Tests is spelt wrong), images to accompany these tests are useful, however, again a legend for each of these would be help
  • Image missing in the Amniocentesis part of diagnosis
  • I don't know if the image link for BACS- on beads technology is really helpful
  • Clinical manifestations has clearly been researched extesively, however, this section is very overwhelming,too much text in my opinion. It would be easier to read if it was summarised more, a graph may be helpful
  • Treatment section is comprehensive and summarised well
  • I have found that incidence has been mentioned in quite a few sections, is this really necessary? Can it just be mentioned in epidemiology?
  • Current and future has got some good info but it is quite lengthy and could be better to summerise it a bit more so u don't lose the reader
  • The last two images need to be referenced properly, with the template and correct referencing


  • The whole project has been researched very well
  • Some of the images could use legends to describe what they are about and you could also consider moving the images around a bit so there's variety and making some of them a little bigger so their features can be seen
  • Maybe acronyms could be included in the glossary
  • some sections could be reviewed and info could be condensed
  • references need to be reviewed and correctly structured (some work on this is required)
  • You could improve this project by also linking the glossary terms to the text to make it easier to access, also some graphs could be used

--z3331556 22:51, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2: DiGeorge Syndrome

  • initial browse through the webpage: well balanced use of text, image, colour and table format.
  • introduction: well summarised and good use of image. It is interesting and provides a good overview to the syndrome. Minor adjustment: give one or two examples of symptoms rather than providing a list.
  • Historical background: good use of timeline, and layout.
  • Epidemiology & Etiology: needs to define terms in glossary such as velocardial syndrome.
  • I appreciate the subheadings used in the pathogensis section... it breaks up the mass of information, creates flow and also shows understanding. Needs to define a few terms in glossary such as: hypoplasia, hypoparathyroidism, parturition etc.
  • Diagnostic tests: well set out, I think the use of colour is aesthetically pleasing and adds to the overall presentation of the webpage.
  • Clinical Manifestations: well set out and good use of images. Table could benefit from use of borders, just to clearly separate the rows where the information appears to overlap.
  • Current&Future Research: could benefit from formatting of previous headings. That is, in a table to break up the information, or by using subheadings

--z3332327 15:42, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment group 2

  • Introduction is clear cut and enters the topic with easy understanding though should incorporate the image more, where the image has no description of what its suppose to explain where symptoms would link to the image would help a lot.
  • Timeline used correctly in displaying the increased understanding of the disorder, image used was does not have a description so don’t know who is the discover right or left and what is the image suppose to show.
  • Etiology refers to a lot of studies or research which is not clearly explained how the research shows the causation of the disorder with various results showing different reasons for causation
  • athogenesis clearly links image to the common deletion of gene with clear explanations of genetics component of Digeorge syndrome. Though would become more fluid with introduction of embryological effects instead of leading to pharyngeal defects.
  • Embryological component didn’t expand the defects of the pharyngeal arches as well not much of the parathyroid which is major component of calcium levels also poorly linked to the image without any mention of the figure.
  • Diagnostic tests require an introduction onto the topic and techniques, where heading directly states the techniques without any understanding of what these means.
  • Clinical manifestations describes information clearly though the congenital heart defects images would work better below the information, so text and information with image below.
  • Treatment has image relating to plastic surgery could have a description even though it’s a example of surgery.
  • Current and future research should be more organised instead of paragraphs have dot points to know the difference between new research and current also images not place in correct manner but in between the glossary as well.
  • Referencing has not been done correctly with only links, repeats and some are even blank.
  • Glossary not linked to the term or bolded to note that it’s in the glossary so while reading its confusing if you have no pathology background.

z3332250 23:42, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2 Peer Review

  • Well structured page in terms of headings, good choice of topics covered
  • Do not need to define congenital abnormality. If you want to define it perhaps add it to the glossary instead?
  • Symptoms in introduction would probably be best in another section
  • Great images. Some need to be made bigger in order to easily read the detail on it
  • Most images are on the right side of the page. Could you move them around a bit to make it visually more appealing?
  • Faint colour highlighting under treatment needs to be made darker or deleted
  • Some duplication in referencing
  • Well researched-great
  • Overall, an informative and well presented page. Just some minor details which need to be adjusted to finalise page

--Fleur McGregor 16:55, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Comments on Group Project 2

Group 2

  • By looking at your page it’s clear you’ve performed extensive research on DiGeorge Syndrome, well done on the effort
  • Spelling needs to be attended to....’Diagnostic Tests’
  • The image included in the introduction could use a legend. Maybe you could refer to it in the introduction, but to me it’s just a picture of 3 babies
  • Nice work on the historical background, grammar could be attended to easily, just some minor things really. This timeline could be better formatted though, maybe in a table. The image included here doesn’t have a legend or some form of description. Just a picture of two old-timers shaking hands.
  • Epidemiology is great although it might be useful to include an image of some sort if possible (I’ve got the same problem) as it’s just a block of text
  • Etiology is good, very descriptive and evidence of a well researched sub-heading.
  • Diagnostic Tests – clever heading, clever formatting and great information. The images included definitely need legends and descriptions
  • Current and Future Research heading could be broken up with some sub-headings
  • Glossary looks great

--z3331469 06:57, 29 September 2011 (EST)


  • Good placement of sub-headings and headings.
  • I like how the introduction gives an overview of the syndrome.
  • All images have copyright statements.


  • The epidemiology and etiology sections seem like really wordy, overwhelming to read. It is paragraphed but maybe the paragraphs could be more distinct.
  • It would be good to link the words that is defined the glossary to the glossary.
  • Some of the references are not formatted properly.

Specific corrections:

  • It would be good if introduction immediately started with what is DiGeorge Syndrome instead of leading up with the definition/characteristic of congenital disorder. This definition can be shifted to the glossary
  • Just curious, it will be interesting to hear how different the first sound of a DiGeorge baby differs from a normal one.
  • ”Dianostic Tests” is spelt incorrectly.
  • Instead of the sub-heading “Based on symptoms”, it could be “Symptomatic diagnosis”.
  • What is “clinodactyly” in the description of the image under “based on symptoms”?
  • The link under images for BAC subheading could go under external links section?
  • Maybe the table under “Tetralogy of DiGeorge Syndrome” could be vertical instead of horizontal? It will look neater.

--Z3389806 06:40, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2

  • Introduction: good content, but the symptoms do not really belong there.
  • Very nice historical section, nice to read
  • Epidemiology and etiology seem almost like one big section. Maybe separate the content a bit more (no repetitions), and break it done with subheadings.
  • Pathogenesis: includes helpful explanations and information, good use of reasonable subheadings. The drawn images could have been done with more


  • Diagnostic tests: very nice informative section, good use of images to visualize the content. I think the choice of colour for the table could be

better, maybe another shade of the pink (darker, red...) that has been used for clinical manifestations. The green disrupts the flow of the entire page.

  • Clinical manifestations: very nice section, precise information, good structure, useful images.
  • Treatment: lots of information in a nice form, but the image would look better on the right edge (like the ones in ” research” ). Good use of subheadings.
  • Research: good content, but would be easier to follow if you would break it down with subheadings.
  • Glossary: looks good, but explanations like “malformation: see dysmorphia” should be avoided. It would be better to define every term separately.

--Z3387190 11:34, 25 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2 Critique

  1. • The introduction needs to be re-written in proper English. Some of the sentences don’t make proper sense. Also, the introduction should focus primarily on DiGeorge’s Syndrome and not explain what a congenital abnormality is
  2. • Historical background was good
  3. • Epidemiology should not explain clinical features, such as the baby making a noise which is nasally in tone
  4. • Aetiology is ok
  5. • Pathogenesis is quite detailed, however genes should be explained a little more clearly
  6. • Diagnostic tests section was impressive
  7. • Clinical manifestations was good
  8. • Treatment was good
  9. • Future research was good
  10. • Glossary was good

Images were appropriately used. --Robert Klein 18:36, 24 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2

Hey Group 2, firstly, well done on putting in the effort to create this page, it really shows your dedication and cooperation as a team! Here are some points I thought you could improve on to take this page to that extra level

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Good overview. Image would look better with a border or as a thumb
    • History: Image too large, again maybe a border?
    • Epidemiology: Need to define velocardiofacial syndrome in glossary, also break it down into subheadings, eg. Incidence, Sex, etc
    • Etiology: Maybe better if in a table
    • Pathogenesis: I liked how you broke it doen into relevant subheadings. However, on a slightly negative note, the DG Pathophysiology Diagram looks rushed; I think it would've looked better if it was neater and easier to read.
    • Diagnosis: I felt citing was done poorly in this section, eg. the last 4/5 sentences in the FISH technique was not referenced at all, but again, this is very easily fixed. But good to see you have put in the effort and time
    • Clinical: Image of normal and cleft palate, if based on a textbook, I think you still need permission to adapt it (not quite sure, please ask Mark)? Table with 'How it is caused' would be better by itself as pathophysiology. Tetralogy of Fallot needs to be fitted into this section more smoothly, at the moment, it makes this section look very cramped. Also, the image regarding Tetralogy needs the correct format for student drawn images (ie. 'I (student no.)....)
    • Research: Maybe break it down into subheadings
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    • Good images used with a nice range of self drawn images. However, no where in the page is there any reference to the images within the text.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • I feel citation needs to be improved overall. Lots of the sections have missing citations, especially Diagnostic Tests. Also in the reference list, refs 33,40,47, 49 have nothing in it (is it meant to be like this?)
  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.
    • Nice drawings, though some could've done better with more effort
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    • Nice range of references used
  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.
    • It's very clear to me that you guys have worked together well and there has been good team work going on here to create this page, so well done
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • I feel your page is too heavy with the text, although there's a lot of images as well, it just doesn't quite balance out with the text.
  • Also felt the different colours used for the tables, although adding a splash of colour to your page, brought down the overall quality of the page. However, please keep in mind that others might really like this approach of table formatting, it's just that personally, I think you could benefit from keeping all table colours consistent.
  • Sometimes you refer to DiGeorge Syndrome as DGS and also as DS. Small and easy to fix, adds consistency
  • Please don't forget to add the {template} for student uploaded images
  • Definitely needs more words in the Glossary, such as Meiosis, de novo, microarray

--z3291643 16:02, 24 September 2011 (EST)

DiGeorge Syndrome

  • The page has a really nice setout, the introduction and history looks really good. It has a nice flow.
  • There could be at least one other picture in 'Epidemiology' and 'Etiology', otherwise it just looks like a big block of text
  • The second last paragraph in 'Epidemiology' would be better suited in 'Clinical Manifestations'
  • There's a bit of repetition between 'Etiology' and 'Pathology', it could be better to combine these
  • The 'Diagnostic Tests' look really good, fantastic table and images
  • I love the ultrasound picture
  • The table in 'Clinical Manifestations' is really great with lots of detail
  • I understand it's difficult to find, but more images in 'Clinical Manifestations' to give a visual representation would be fantastic
  • "Teratoogy of Fallot as an example...."
  • "Once diagnosed, there is no single therapy plan. Opposite, each patient needs to be considered individually and consult various specialists" This doesn't make muhc sense, that was from the 'Treatment' section.
  • You had a lot of good information in 'Current and Future Research', but I found myself getting lost in all the text. Maybe subheadings would help?
  • Don't forget to fix up the references, we don't want to see webpages as a reference even if it leads you to the paper
  • Overall your page looks very good, some minor formatting would be useful

  • A very clear format has been used. The mixed use of dot points and paragraph form were used appropriately in most sections and made your web-page easy to read and follow
  • Good use of self drawn images, however the large image of Angelo DiGeorge seemed slightly irrelevant and took up a large portion of your page. Your first two images should probably have small heading below the image, just to make them a bit more clear to the reader.
  • A coherent history/timeline was used.
  • You’re referencing needs to be tidied up; there are multiple entries from the same source that tends to clutter your reference section. Some references are incompletely, or have no linking information such as reference 49.
  • Your current research section was good but perhaps could have been tabulated just for easier reading and to really draw out the main points.
  • Your table for clinical manifestations could have been summarised otherwise it should maybe just be written in paragraph form.
  • Your page definitely reflects the time and effort you have placed into the assignment. I really liked the range of formatting you used and the use of colour made your page easy to read and follow. Another great feature was the section based on the example of Tetralogy of fallot. It was interesting to read how other defects that we have discussed in class, linked in with your studied abnormality.

--z3332629 15:21, 22 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2

  • Structure- headings, subheadings and tables make this a very readable page with a nice flow.
  • It may be nice to have the colours of the tables continuous throughout the page. eg only yellow.
  • Ensure all your pictures are correctly referenced, it would be a shame if Mark deleted them, as they add a lot to your page and aid in read ability.
  • not to text heavy which is good!
  • Intro well written an gives a good scope to the syndrome.
  • Dianostic Tests: I like this section and that the images accompany the text.
  • Tetralogy of fallot as on example of the congenital heart defects that can occur in DiGeorge syndrome: Very interesting example, great pictures!! very well drawn. maybe you could put the pictures vertically down the page.
  • Current and Future Research section it might be nice to add subheadings of what the research is.
  • Good use of citing/ referencing it gives your page authority/ believability, just beware of the doubling in your reference list.
  • It might nice to collate all the genetic info into one section.

  • Introduction: Good in general. Last paragraph needs a slight revision in sentence structure. "The clinical manifestations of the chromosome 22 deletion are significant and can lead to poor quality" - significant in what way? As in they have a big impact? And also, poor quality of what? Life?
  • Historical Background : Very detailed, which is nice. The layout isn't quite 100% consistent, which should be easily fixed. Some findings could do with further explanations to show how this lead to progress. Also, some terms should be linked to the glossary, or in some cases, a mention that subsequent paragraphs will provide more detail.
  • Epidemiology: Seems fine to me, though a figure would be nice to break up the text.
  • Etiology: Links to glossary needed. This part contains many technical terms that aren't explained. Also, is it known why this region is specially prone to rearrangements?
  • Pathogenesis: Seems to repeat what was said in etiology, but in more detail. Well written and explained.
  • Diagnosis: There's a typo in the title - Dianostic instead of Diagnostic. You might want to split your table into prenatal and postnatal, as otherwise it is a bit confusing to read "ultrasound" as a diagnostic tool. It does become obvious very quickly that it is prenatal, but just for clarity's sake, splitting the table could help, especially as you mix pre- and postnatal tools throughout the table. Also, just be careful about using capitals - in the beginning you say BACS, and later you say BACs. BACs is the plural of BAC, which is what Bacterial Artificial Chromosome stands for, not BACS. Your explanations in this part of the table are quite technical - you might want to explain more terms in the glossary at least.
  • Clinical Manifestations: Very thorough and detailed, which is good. I like the table, but including some more figures might help break up the long bits of text.
  • Treatment: Also quite thorough, well explained.
  • Current and Future Research: Very good and detailed, well explained. Maybe include headings for the different sections, so it's easier to see what each is talking about?
  • Glossary: More terms need explanations.
  • References: Seem fine in general, though there are a few links that probably should be cited differently. Also, some references link to emptiness?
  • General: All the tables are slightly differently formatted, you might want to get that more uniform.

Group 2 Critique

  • Do the symptoms need to be listed in the introduction, or is that repetitive since it’s also in the etiology portion?
  • Historical Background- Overall this section looks good, but each bullet needs to be consistent. Ie:

-only the first few bullets have a colon after the date while the others don’t. I think either a colon or a – mark should be used after the date to show a better separation. -some sentences don’t end with periods.

  • The Etiology and Epidemiology sections have good content, but it looks rather wordy from an aesthetic viewpoint. A picture or some bullet points for separation might be helpful to solve this.
  • For the image Chromosome22DGS.jpg, surely you didn’t know this layout from your own knowledge… Wouldn’t you have had to copy this image from another source, and wouldn’t that source also need to be cited as well?
  • For terms that are in the glossary, it would be good to format the words in the wiki so that when you click on them it takes the reader directly to that term in the glossary.
  • Several of the references aren’t formatted correctly, or are missing entirely.
  • This might be a bit nit-picky, but for the references given throughout the wiki, there isn’t any consistency. 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 #...
  • 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.

--Ashley Smith 11:05, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment: Group Project 2

  • The information in the introduction is good, however you may want to introduce the syndrome in the first sentence and then explain what congenital abnormalities are.
  • The timeline is clearly set out, maybe decide whether you want to put a colon or not after the date to keep consistency.
  • The diagnostic tests section has a good balance between being informative through pictures and text. It would be good to place an image for amniocentesis and also replace the link on BACS technology to either have an image and use the paper as an extra link or to replace the heading of 'image' to 'additional information' or some such title.
  • Maybe an image could be inserted in the section on etiology or epidemiology. An graph to accompany some of the statistics might make the information more accessible.
  • Under the information of the images you have uploaded, you need put {{Template:2011 Student Image}}.
  • In the glossary writing "A" above the group of A words and so on and so forth for the rest of it, would make it easier for the reader to quickly find the desired word.
  • Some of the references should have more information in them (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 46, 47, 48, 49 and others).
  • The references should not be duplicated and can instead be linked together using the 'multiple instances on a page' editing guidelines:

--z3217345 12:43, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2:

  • The introduction is very easy to read and is accompanied by a great image, although this image should include a legend. It would be beneficial to link the image with the symptoms mentioned in the intro and to only mention a couple of important symptoms instead of listing them all here and having to repeat yourself later on.
  • Very extensive historical background. Very impressive and well referenced. Image needs to include a legend.
  • Epidemiology needs to be proof read as there are a couple of little mistakes that lessen the value of what is a really well researched section; “Due to the fact that 22q11.2 deletions can also resulting in signs that...”, “It has been well documented that there individuals who...” and “which may be resultant form a learning dysfunction or heart disease.”
  • Etiology is also done well and is very comprehensive, however there is a spelling mistake “interstital deletions of chromosome 22” so make sure you re-read this section too.
  • An image either in epidemiology or etiology would help break up a huge chunk of text.
  • Pathogenesis/Pathophysiology section is very strong with great student drawn images relevant to the text. Only suggestion is to hyperlink glossary terms since there are a lot of terms in this section which need to be explained further.
  • Diagnostic Test section is done well with a well formatted table making it easy to read. Some images are missing as I’m sure you’re aware of and make sure to include “{{Template:2011 Student Image}}” for these images.
  • Clinical manifestations; perhaps the table describing the symptoms could immediately proceed after “The most common signs and symptoms include:” instead of having the symptoms in dot points and repeated twice. The student drawn image may benefit from pointing out that A is at rest and B is during normal speech – just to clarify. I also noticed a spelling mistake “In more severs cases..” so just make sure you go over this section with a fine comb.
  • Treatment also had a couple of little mistakes for example “and consult various specialists, from example a cardiologist”. A legend for the images here would improve this section.
  • Current and future research is very extensive and well researched.

Hats off to you guys!

Peer Assessment

  • interesting layout
  • pictures were good examples
  • maybe need a touch up with the referencing
  • i liked it how it was worded in a way that could be understood for a wide audience however the structure and format could not be read so easily

--z3060621 20:37, 28 September 2011 (EST)

--z3290815 14:09, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 2

*The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. Well described, but very hard to follow at points due to volume of text.

*The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. Tables include too much information. it should summarise the main points, for large chunks of text put it in the body of the wiki.

*Content is correctly cited and referenced. Fix up some references - there is duplication and links provided in place of a reference as well as missing references. reference for Chest PA 1.jpeg, DiGeorge-Intra Operative XRay.jpg and FISH for DiGeorge Syndrome.jpg should be fixed. also include ----

Note - This image was originally uploaded as part of a student project and may contain inaccuracies in either description or acknowledgements. Students have been advised in writing concerning the reuse of content and may accidentally have misunderstood the original terms of use. If image reuse on this non-commercial educational site infringes your existing copyright, please contact the site editor for immediate removal.

Cite this page: Hill, M.A. (2024, June 22) Embryology 2011 Group Project 2. Retrieved from

What Links Here?
© Dr Mark Hill 2024, UNSW Embryology ISBN: 978 0 7334 2609 4 - UNSW CRICOS Provider Code No. 00098G in all images.

*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. Good diagram explaining pathophysiology but it can be neaten up by doing the text on a program (paint would suffice).

*Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. Very high research volume put into the page but there is too much text going on. Try using some sub-headings to break up the information into easily digestible sections. It also allows for easy location of specific sections.

*Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. Good information on genetics but if possible say how the deletion occurs?

*Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. Apart from small things, the wiki has been edited well.

--z3329495 21:09, 28 September 2011 (EST)

The final Pimp

Hi guys, how is your week end? Thursday is the due date for our side and I think it's looking great already. I just read through it all and noticed the following.

1) I changed 1/4000 to 1/2000 to 1/4000 in the introduction (hope that's ok) this way we are all saying the same.

2) I think we should still change what Mark Hill suggested for the "Historical Background" section: date first and picture not within the text. I'm happy to do it, just thought I should check with you Sarah...

3) There are still some references that need to be fixed

4) Do you guys want to add some of the scientific words that you used to the glossary, otherwise that would be incomplete

and 5) Mark Hill wanted to help me with the tetrallogy of fallot picture but I think he forgot, so I'll ask him again after the lecture and than it's going to be a fancy scenic view picture.

So, let's do the final pimp: I wouldn't leave it until Wednesday because the system is probably going to crash on that day;) Let me know if you need any help and let us know if you think something els should be changed/edited as well.--Anna Marx 16:40, 18 September 2011 (EST)

Hi Anna, yup, 1) sounds fine; we still have that issue with the ultrasound image and removing the text from the background don't we? I'll have a trawl through the references later and see what I can do, and for most of the scientific words I know the sections that I've done have their wording in there; everyone else just has to go through it a bit?

btw guys it looks fantastic :D --Leonard Tiong 10:51, 20 September 2011 (EST)

hey i changed up the history and put the tables in different colours so they dont look like they ar all the same thing if you know what i mean?? anyway... hope its ok :) --Sarah Jenkins 13:20, 21 September 2011 (EST)

Cool, looks good. I like the colours :) --Anna Marx 11:47, 22 September 2011 (EST)


Hi Sarah, I have a question, do you think we can split the baby pictures that you used in you introduction. Sounds super lazy of me, I know. But my problem is, that I would like to put one in my section about facial abnormalities and I couldn't find one that shows these abnormalities well and that has copyright. I wanted to use the one that is in the epidemiology section but I think Leonard wants to keep it there??? Don't really know. Any way, if we would split yours, you could get one baby and I would use the other one. What do you think? --Anna Marx 22:01, 10 September 2011 (EST)

Hey Anna, I wouldnt have a problem doing that but it is one image within the journal and im not sure if we are allowed to manipulate the images? I will talk to Mark about it and if it is ok then i will cut it up for you and put one of them in your section :) Hope this helps. --Sarah Jenkins 08:54, 11 September 2011 (EST)

Hi anna, I SAID down there that you could use the image! :D Feel free to take it because I also think it would assist in that section. I'm just squabbling over the image filename with Mark because it's not descriptive. There's another one there that has a picture of another fellow whose facial abnormalities are quite apparent so I was thinking to use them as they've got a pretty strong contrast between the two of them. What do you think? I've also uploaded my drawings, they took ages and they look so crap :( But I've been scrolling through some of the other groups and we're in good shape guys! It looks really great :) I'll sort out my glossary terms tomorrow morning. Excellent work over the break guys. --Leonard Tiong 21:42, 11 September 2011 (EST)


Hey, how are you holidays coming along? I just wanted to let you know four things;):

1. I am "done" with clinical manifestations. So you can have a look if you like it... I'll still upload at least three images of which two are drawings.

2. So we have got the drawings covered. I just have to scan them.

3. I'll still work on the treatment section tomorrow.

4. For the matching up of our individual sections, Sarah would you mind to change the typical symptoms in your introduction to the same ones I talked about in detail. I think it would look good. Anyway...It would be the following ones:

  • Congenital heart defects
  • Defects of the palate/velopharyngeal insufficiency
  • Recurrent infections due to immunodeficiency
  • Hypocalcaemia due to hypoparathyrodism
  • Learning difficulties
  • Abnormal facial features

Have a good brake guys, --Anna Marx 2--Leonard Tiong 10:45, 8 September 2011 (EST)0:22, 3 September 2011 (EST)

Hi, so I have done my treatment section as well including references and glossary. --Anna Marx 21:43, 6 September 2011 (EST)

Thanks Anna :) I will change it all up now. I know you are doing the drawings but the rest of us need to get some pictures up if possible? --Sarah Jenkins 08:55, 7 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, i have a few pictures to load up, so will get onto that..

Was also going to ask if anyone came across anything good under the future research heading? I have found a bit, struggling a little though, and i feel like there should be more.. Just wondering if anyone came across any interesting points/areas when doing your own research.. Also had the suggestion that maybe pathogenesis/etiology could fall under the same heading, as they are both very similar topics, and maybe I/we could write something up more focussing on the pathophysiology as another heading... I know Anna does talk about this a bit in her clinical manifestations, but thought there was room to potentially cover pathophysiology in a bit more detail under anther heading, and we could maybe reduce the detail in her table as a result, make it a little less large.. let me know what you think..

--Timothy Ellwood 09:21, 7 September 2011 (EST)

really good job with everything at the moment it looks really fantastic. tomorrow is my allocated day to get through this work, so I'll be sure to get a large chunk of my sections "done". Anna, excellent work done so far, it looks really fantastic. Umm tim, as for your struggles at the moment, I'll be sure to keep that in mind when I'm looking at my other papers; just having a look at the moment and I'll get a little more help for you tomorrow, if possible. looking great so far guys! --Leonard Tiong 14:23, 7 September 2011 (EST)

hey tim, another idea is to change the heading to 'current and future research' that way you can look into what is being down now and very recently. that will give you heaps :) --Sarah Jenkins 07:13, 8 September 2011 (EST)

ps. i used a wikipedia image so we cant put another one up now... hope this isnt a problem --Sarah Jenkins 07:14, 8 September 2011 (EST)

By the way Anna, I'll probably draw my image and upload it later this evening; I can't find any images that best match what I want without having to go through all of the copyright information, so I'll just draw it :D slowly trawling through my sections. Epidemiology might be a bit short (as there's not that much you can write on it) but the pathophysiology section should be quite lengthy (Hopefully :) ) --Leonard Tiong 10:45, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Slowly going through pathophysl now. by the way guys, Mark Hill has put something at the top of our page if you haven't already seen it. I think it would be best to implement the points that he has noted; they're relatively minor, if you guys haven't gotten round to doing it by say, tomorrow (?) then i'll see if I can change it :)

I'm finding this INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING that I can't save the material but no one else seems to be online. :(

Hello! I just thought let you know that I did two drawings which I plan to put into the table under clinical manifestations. And I also have images on my computer, that also go into the table. I just have trouble uploading them (may be it's because I have a mac... not sure). But in case I don't manage I'm sure one of you could help me on Thursday. I'll also try to make the tables a bid lighter. --Anna Marx 17:15, 8 September 2011 (EST)

ALL RIGHT, so I have change my tables. I have tried to explain it in a way so that people with no science background should understand it. Some words I had to leave in because that is just what it's called... Any way I think it'll be even better once I have the pictures in as well. If you like to have some thing changed let me know. --Anna Marx 19:12, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Hi Anna, just asking what have you done in your drawings? I drew the chromosome and the area in which deletions were most common, it's not the greatest drawing but I leave it up; and, I was thinking of drawing the presenting symptoms of DiGeorge (there aren't that many anyway). What do you think? Let me know what you've gotten down :) --Leonard Tiong 23:06, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys I will fix up what is wrong with my bits tomorrow afternoon sorry. I have had other things to do this week as well. Mark's comments are valid and relatively simple to fix luckily. --Sarah Jenkins 00:55, 9 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys. Looks like Dr Hill's criticism was relatively minor which is great. Should be easy for us to fix. As for the future research I have found a heap more stuff, seems as if alot of current research on this deletion is in relation to schizophrenia, but have found alot more stuff relating to Digeorge. Suggestions still welcome of course. Sarah your suggestion is fanatastic, more relevant as well. I will change that now. As for my last section and images I will get to that tonight hopefully, just have been working full time over the break.. --Timothy Ellwood 10:24, 9 September 2011 (EST)

Hi, I have changed my table even more - hope you like it. In the end we might have to match the colours but we cna do that together in the lab. How is doing epidemiology, I planned on using exact the picture for clinical section where I describe facial abnormalities. That was the best one I found - that other children looked so said. Any way, may be I can steal it or I try to find another one. Tim, I also thought I suggest, if you still can's find enough you could look into more specific stuff. For example into research of how to improve cardiac surgery, treatment for immunodeficiency etc... there should be loads out there. Any way, we are doing great team! --Anna Marx 16:40, 9 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys,

Yeah, just have to put in a couple of images to help break things up. I've been looking at the things that the other groups have produced from the previous years and it looks really great, I think our project is beginning to look somewhat like that (which I feel will do us good!). I'm still trawling through some of the references and images; as for the epidemiology section, I've written all that I can find on that... if you guys want to put anything else in there feel free too but I feel there's a lot of repetition throughout the literature and what I've written covers epidemiology quite well. Having looked at some of the other groups we've done a really great job, anna, feel free to upload those pictures so that we can all have a look :)--Leonard Tiong 22:09, 9 September 2011 (EST)

Hi yeah, I will on Monday. I am sorry that I can't do it earlier! --Anna Marx 21:42, 10 September 2011 (EST)

week 6

hey awseome work with the page but u have to put references on your work asap or we will get done for plagiarism --Sarah Jenkins 07:18, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Yep, I'm working on it now. Is tim still working on the project with us? He hasn't written anything for his sections yet.. --Leonard Tiong 08:50, 1 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys. Yeh im working on my sections, havnt posted anything up at all coz have been sick for the last week or so, and then working all weekend. I plan to have the majority of mine done by tonight though, then will start the editing process overall later in the week i guess. Sorry to hold things up. --Timothy Ellwood 08:57, 5 September 2011 (EST)


Hey sorry I missed the lab class today, im having some family troubles but will be back in sydney on the weekend. If somebody could let me know what happened etc I would really appreciate it. Are we still doing Duchennes or did another group choose it too?

Hello, I hope that you family gets better soon. So, we had to flip a coin with another group about Duchennes and unfortunately lost. We decided that we'll all think about what else we would find interesting until Sunday and post our suggestions here so that we can make a decision about it on Sunday or early this week. If I understand right, it would be the best if we find a disorder that is really caused during embryonic development. Hence Duchennes and Thalassamia for example are not the best ones any way. Have a good week end guys. --Anna Marx 18:51, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Thanks Anna, I will have a look at some now and see what I can find :) --Sarah Jenkins 15:20, 12 August 2011 (EST)

New Ideas

  • Conjoined twins. It results from abnormalities in the original process of cell division.

  • Spina Bifida is due to incomplete closing of the neural tube

  • Cri Du chat syndrome

  • Ectodermal dysplasia

Another Idea

Hi! I think there are so many interesting congenital diseases/abnormalities which we could choose. I have had a look around and I think that DiGeorge Syndrome would be a good topic! First, it is due to some abnormalities in the chromosome 22, hence there is a genetic component. Second, it occurs in 1 of 4000 people and there are lots of variations from person to person, hence there will be a lot of research and a lot of information that we can use. Third, a defect in the migration of neural crest cells is included, which means it happens during embryonic development. So, may be you can have a look into it and let me know what you think. Have a good week end, Anna --Anna Marx 15:03, 13 August 2011 (EST)

I had a quick look and this looks like a good one. I'm happy to do DiGeorge if everyone else is?? --Sarah Jenkins 10:40, 14 August 2011 (EST)

Ok, sounds good! What about the rest of the group? Do you guys like DiGeorge too? I am open for any other suggestion, however I would suggest, that we make our decision soon, so that we can start our research about it. So I'll open a little "Agree with you signature" box and wait what happens :) --Anna Marx 17:41, 14 August 2011 (EST)

DiGeorge Syndrome

If you like to make DiGeorge Syndrome to our team project, sign below.

--Anna Marx 17:43, 14 August 2011 (EST) --Sarah Jenkins 19:09, 15 August 2011 (EST) --Timothy Ellwood 09:30, 16 August 2011 (EST) --Leonard Tiong 00:21, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Project Plan

I think it is important to keep moving on with the project. We need to quickly agree on things and get the job done. From previous experience, getting the work done early is a benefit to everyone involved. The project needs to be broken down into subheadings. I have listed some below which need to be covered without doubt, and I am open to other ideas as well. If everyone could pick 2 that they are happy to take on it means that everyone will have a round about even job. I spoke to Anna Earlier and she said she was willing to do the drawings. Is that still ok? If so I think its fair that you only have to do one subheading of theory work.

  • Introduction (Sarah)
  • Historical background of the disease and its research (Sarah)
  • Epidemiology (Leonard)
  • Etiology (Tim)
  • Pathogenesis (Leonard)
  • Clinical manifestations (and explanations of these) (Anna)
  • Treatment options if available (Anna)
  • Diagnosis of the disease, pre and post natally (Sarah)
  • Further research possibilities (Tim)
  • Image (Anna)

I would prefer it if i could do the introduction, historical background and diagnosis. I am willing to do 3 because the introduction is a pretty easy one. If anyone has a problem with this let me know. I also think first in best dressed to picking topics. I only think its fair and if not, we can sort it out later. --Sarah Jenkins 19:09, 15 August 2011 (EST)

Hi, thank you for the layout. I think it is a good start! I an still happy to do the drawings. So let me know if you have specific wishes or if you have suggestions of what we/I need to draw. I can also do Clinical manifestations and treatment options, which would make it three as well. However I thought pathogenesis will be a big one because that would include all the genetics. May be it will be enough if one person on it's own. Otherwise etiology would go well with it, leaving epidemiology and further research for the last one;) Further research might be big too... However, I am open to adjust. --Anna Marx 21:03, 15 August 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been in touch, just been busy with some orchestra stuff outside of uni. The stuff so far sounds great, I'll get to work tomorrow getting some papers together and seeing what I can find out about the condition. I wouldn't mind doing the epidemiology and pathogenesis sections - Anna, I think he said we only had to submit one self-drawn picture but I wouldn't mind doing some either, since I draw everything for anatomy :D either way, let me know what you think! So far things sound really great, thanks for getting so much done and once again my apologies for not having chucked in my two cents earlier! --Leonard Tiong 23:02, 15 August 2011 (EST)

Awesome, now that we are on the way there it should be easier to focus our reading. We also need to do a glossary, and i think its easier if we do it as we go. so when we come across words that need a definition (to non science people) just chuck it in the glossary. even if we define it later, having it there is easier than having to go through and pick them out later. :) thanks for being so enthusiastic. :) --Sarah Jenkins 07:13, 16 August 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, sorry for the late addition, busy with various other things as I'm sure most of you are! Im happy to take the two headings that are left over. Also it looks like some of the other headings might contain alot more work than the two I've got, i think the further research one could potentially contain alot but unsure at this i would be happy to share another one and help out if anyone would like?? It was suggested above that Pathogenesis and etiology could go well together.... Let me know. Glossary sounds like a great idea!

Also i thought it would be a good idea if before the lab on Thursday if we could each try to find say 2 articles that relate to the heading we have selected.. Similar to what Dr Hill asked us to do for last week but now we have our topics etc. it should help to get us up and running. --Timothy Ellwood 09:29, 16 August 2011 (EST)

I have set up sections below for us to put any references we find. it makes it easy to find the ones we need, and if other people come across good references for a topic other than their own it allows us to share :)--Sarah Jenkins 15:22, 16 August 2011 (EST)

Hey tim, more then happy to switch doing etiology with you but I wouldn't mind doing both together either. We'd better tell Mark to change our title over to DiGeorge's syndrome, I'll get some papers up in the mean time but will be really busy until thursday! :(

Update - Hey guys, just found a rather general article on DiGeorge but thought it was interesting, will leave the link here, if you guys got a moment have a trawl through :) I don't know what I'm still doing up at this hour :\ I'll have a read of it tomorrow morning :) --Leonard Tiong 23:55, 16 August 2011 (EST)

Assuming that was Leonard above? I dont mind at all, maybe we can talk about it on thursday and sort something out. In the meantime i guess ill try find whatever articles I can on both topics.

Also just thought i would point out this resource [1], as it says that DiGeorge Syndrome (DGS) falls under the the title of 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome, which apparently includes a number of other very similar disorders such as Velocardiofacial Syndrome, Conotruncal Anomoly Syndrome, Autosomal Dominant Opitz G/BBB Syndrome, Cayler Cardiofacial Syndrome and Shprintzen Syndrome. Not sure if we wanted to include these in our research, but worth considering I think as there could be alot more research under one of these titles and allow us for a broader and more accurate picture of the disorder as a whole.

--Timothy Ellwood 15:21, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Good work guys, our project has taken shape already. I have now changed our project title, hence we should be safe and good to go! See you tomorrow in the lab --Anna Marx 20:19, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Things are looking really splendid guys, I'm starting my sections now but it doesn't seem like there's that much for me to write on. I'll try to see if i can spruce things up a little bit more. Referring to several textbooks (anyone got any suggestions?) for some of my basic info, and I'll find original sources later. But yeah, difficulties in trying to find specific information. Especially since there's so much overlap at the moment with the other different names. So far the four major ones that I got (I know you guys have included them) but four definite names involve (obviously) DiGeorge syndrome, Velocardiofacial Syndrome (VCFS), Conotrunchal anomalies facie syndrome (CTAF) Syndrome, and CATCH22. I don't think CATCH22 is a diagnostic name but rather a mnemonic that helps them remember the symptons of DiGeorge. Onto my writing! Just another thing that I'm well aware of, I haven't put many references into my work as of yet, still trying to find the best sources for the information. I've got a bunch of them written down and need to just go through them to make sure that I've the right sources from the right place but my laptops out of battery at the moment :( I'll try to get that done by tonight or tomorrow. :) --Leonard Tiong 18:25, 22 August 2011 (EST)

Review Article

Hey guys, just found a review article that I thought was rather interesting, it's an animal model for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy[2]. I also found a primary journal article that discusses drug delivery for the condition [3]. I will print these articles for myself tonight and give them a quick read tomorrow and then paste a quick summary of the articles here just for you guys to consider :)

Review Mammalian models of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: pathological characteristics and therapeutic applications.

Primary Detection of duchenne/becker muscular dystrophy carriers in a group of Iranian families by linkage analysis.

--Sarah Jenkins 10:00, 6 August 2011 (EST)

Primary Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy in a developing country over a 10-year period.

Review Advances in Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy.

--Anna Marx 12:52, 8 August 2011 (EST)

Duchennes Muscular dystrophy

--z3288827 21:53, 8 August 2011 (EST)

Review Article

Hey guys, just found a review article that I thought was rather interesting, it's an animal model for Duchenne's muscular dystrophy[4]. I also found a primary journal article that discusses drug delivery for the condition [5]. I will print these articles for myself tonight and give them a quick read tomorrow and then paste a quick summary of the articles here just for you guys to consider :)


[1] Nakamura A., Takeda S.; Mammalian Models of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: Pathological Characteristics and Therapeutic Applications, J. Biomedicine and Biotechnology Vol. 2011, Article ID 184393

[2] Yukihara et al; Effective Drug Delivery System for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Using Hybrid Liposomes Including Gentamicin along with Reduced Toxicity, J. Biol. Pharm. Bull, Volume 34, No. 5 pp. 712-716

Found References



DiGeorge Anomaly

Historical Background




A Genetic etiology for DiGeorge syndrome [6]

Inactivation of TGF􏰀 signaling in neural crest stem cells leads to multiple defects reminiscent of DiGeorge syndrome [7]

A deletion in chromosome 22 can cause digeorge syndrome [8]

DiGeorge syndrome phenotype in mice mutant for the T-box gene [9]


[Three phases of DiGeorge/22q11 deletion syndrome pathogenesis during brain development: patterning, proliferation, and mitochondrial functions of 22q11 genes]



Diagnostic Criteria


{ Seizures and EEG findings in an adult patient with DiGeorge syndrome: a case report and review of the literature.]



This looks like an excellent resource, listing over 100 research papers on nearly every aspect of DiGeorge from the 70's to present. [10]

Deciphering DiGeorge Syndrome: Big Advances In Understanding Microdeletions [11]


FISH carried out to detect DiGeorge syndrome. FISH is abbreviated as fluorescent in-situ hybridisation and is carried out to detect abnormalities whilst babies are still developing in the womb. --

FISH to detect DiGeorge syndrome[1]

Leonard Tiong 00:17, 17 August 2011 (EST)

DiGeorge T cell receptor Diversity post thymus transplant.jpg

--Sarah Jenkins 08:54, 18 August 2011 (EST)

Facial manifestations of patient with DiGeorge Syndrome

Facial manifestations of patient with DiGeorge Syndrome.jpg

--z3279511 21:18, 17 August 2011 (EST)