Talk:2011 Group Project 3

From Embryology
Revision as of 10:28, 29 September 2011 by Z3290618 (talk | contribs)

Group 3: User:z3289066 | User:z3289301 | User:z3289829 | User:z3289991


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

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

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

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

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

Peer Review You need to break up the large amount of text with more tables. The amount of text is quite overwhelming up until 'Signs and Symptoms'. Speaking of this section: The table looks FANTASTIC. Really neat, simple, love it! However... you haven't alternated the colours correctly. You need to end with light purple... you have two dark blocks next to eachother.

Your 'Action of inhibitors' picture needs to be better segregated. Put a border around it or something.

Try to keep your formatting of headings consistant. In further research, the headings do not appear in the contents, but in Diagnosis, they do.

Oh and... YOU DON'T NEED X-CHROMOSOME IN GLOSSARY. The 16yo girl sitting in this lab knows what this means... --Ziggy Harrison-Tikisci 10:28, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3:

The long introduction and history needs a pic.

The pictures in epidemiology are really small.

Links to the videos are a good idea.

There is an inconsistent amount of referencing throughout the various sections. Some sections have an excessive amount of referencing and others have just enough. Maybe 2-4 a section.

The references take up quite a bit of the page most probably because there are repeated references that have not yet been addressed.

z3332178 =]

Group 3:

  • intro: the structure of this is a little confusing and it’s not really clear what you’re talking about. The flow of this section is really important – think ‘if I read it on a wiki page, would I read any further, or would I search a different page cos this was just too confusing?’ It might be good to start off your first sentence introducing the disease instead of talking about what happens in normal meiosis first. These few sentences that you put in the middle would be a good few opening sentences.. ‘One of these is known as Klinefelter's syndrome. This describes a syndrome where a person may have one or more extra X chromosomes. This is most commonly due to a process known as non-disjunction during meiosis,’ but start off with ‘Klinefelter’s syndrome is….’ But the content was good.
  • history: this section was good with content and structure, but perhaps replace the second paragraph that has all the wordy dates with the timeline and stick your references there. Sometimes it works better with fewer words in a table than a chunky paragraph.
  • epidemiology: making the pictures bigger would be nicer. Also theres a lot of info about stuff I would read under clinical manifestations which should be placed there instead.
  • etiology: overall good section. The images were really useful. Loved the animation hyperlinks.
  • patho: working on the ‘nondisjunction’ to be in one continuous line under the images would be easier to read on the viewer. Other than that, good section.
  • signs and symptoms: good section. Easy to read. Concise.
  • diagnostics, and the following subheadings: were all easy, well written, flow was good.
  • glossary: really liked how you subheaded each part of the alphabet with the letters ‘A’, ‘B’ etc.

--z3290558 09:56, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • The first paragraph is not necessary, talk about Klinefelter’s specifically not about sex chromosomes. This can be discussed further in the webpage.
  • Double spacing of paragraphs and other formatting looks awkward.
  • Great historic information but could be integrated into the timeline instead of having large paragraphs and a timeline.
  • Really liked “other similar disorders”. Great idea.
  • Some references need to be fixed so there is not double ups in the reference list.

--z3217043 08:55, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

The wiki has overall interesting information and is well structured. You have also taken all of Mark Hill's suggestions and improved on the site a lot. Some issues:

  • Introduction is a little confusing and not very understood well. Should start off with Klinefelter’s description.
  • Some images are too small. To expand images while reading the wiki breaks up the flow, especially the table images.
  • I don't like the break-up of the alphabet letters in every title on the Glossary section; I find it very distracting.

--z3293267 08:53, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • Intro: Not a very good idea to introduce the disease with an overly simplified/unexciting image of meiosis, especially if you want the responder to keep reading. I’m sure there something more exciting to represent the disease.
  • History: Thorough research, you just have to find a better way of representing it. Take the text, break it down and add it to the timeline. If I was given this to read I would look at the timeline and skip the text, it’s too much.
  • Epidemiology: image: “Age and intellectual functioning of boys with Klinefelter Syndrome and normal males.png”. The png should not be left at the end of image and quite honestly the table is hard to understand with little explanation given. Wouldn’t people ask what is “ F(1,27= 5.9, p=0.02”? Either explain the table thoroughly or get rid of it.
  • Aetiology: Animations were excellent! Perhaps use still-frames as images in this section, because the picture provided is a bit dull and looks very similar to the opening image.
  • Pathogenesis: The two images look very similar; perhaps use different colours to indicate their differences. It will make the page more appealing also. The information is relative and easy to follow, although some information is overlapping with aetiology.
  • Signs and symptoms: Love the table format- but more information is required. More detail on each section and corresponding images would improve it. Also there is no referencing in the “puberty” section.
  • Management:“Action of Amoratase Inhibitors on Production of Estradiol.JPG” is not referenced.
  • Other similar defects: It’s a lot more thorough than a few of the sections explaining the disease itself. I don’t think you need to be this descriptive in this section.
  • Image/text ratio: need more interesting images (no more cell division images though), and also need to be more detailed in a few sections as mentioned above.
  • Overall: Good job, but you still have some work to do.

--z3290270 02:35, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3 Peer evaluation

  • The introduction is good. It brief and informative of what t o expect in the page. The only criticism I have is that the historical background that was placed towards the end of the section, which should probably have been in the beginning or incorporated somewhere there.
  • The History section is good, but probably too detailed. I think you can mix the timeline and history together and make this section a bit more concise.
  • Epidemiology is a bit of a disappointment for me. There is a bit of information of the demographics of the disease, like prevalence, but I think epidemiology should go deeper into it, like talking about geographical distribution or if there is any race that are more inclined to developing the syndrome. Also this section ended up being an in-depth illustration of a patient’s clinical manifestation. Probably a few statistics on what percentage shows these different types of manifestation and figures some figures of the variation in mutation.
  • The etiology section is very informative and I think it has all the information needed for that section. I just think that the arrangement of the information could probably be changed a bit. I think the genetics subsection is unnecessary, even though it does break the section up a bit and allows categorization of it. I just think that you could organise the ideas in this section better than what it already is. The image used here was very appropriate and aids the reader.
  • I really like your pathogenesis section. It’s simple yet informative. It is very effective because the terms and concepts that you guys have here are not foreign to the reader because you have already introduced them beforehand, or explained it. Only downfall I guess is the referencing. There is only one section of your information that is referenced.
  • Signs and symptoms are done well. You got away with just listing them because most of it is self-explanatory. I guess the only thing that will make this section amazing are some more elaborate images.
  • Diagnosis section is done quite well, although the heading should be reconsidered to something like diagnostic test/procedure or something because the diagnosis is “klinefelter’s syndrome”. You also did a good job in incorporating what the tests are looking for, especially in the karyotyping bit. Unfortunately, this was not done for prenatal diagnosis methods, so a bit more information on this one. Finally, I don’t think the statistics need a whole subheading for it. It could just be part of an introduction to this section.
  • I like the management section and the image that you used with it is used appropriately and very useful
  • The other similar defects is informative, but I think that you went into far too much detail for it in a page dedicated for klinefelter’s syndrome. It is written well and the information in it are amazing though.
  • I like the current research section because it says to the reader that the information on this page are up-to-date, giving the whole page credibility. What would probably make it better is a future direction kind of area, where you can put in some proposed theories or studies by researchers, and at the same time some of your own ideas of the direction where this syndrome should head into.
  • I am not a big fan of glossaries, but it does look good

--z3290841 10:21, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review Assessment

  • Overall, good use of sub headings and layout.
  • Maybe start the introduction with the actual disease rather explaining the genetics behind it. Got a bit boring. However rest of it was well written.
  • History section is well researched. Table is a good summary of the key events. Try and insert an image in this section to break up the heavy text and bring some color into the page.
  • The epidemiology section contains information about clinical manifestations and appearances that can be included in a different section. Try and refine this section a little bit. Enlarge the two images in this section.
  • Aetiology was well written. It might be a good idea to include some text below the student drawing included in this section explaining it. It doesn't make much sense at the moment.
  • I liked the pathogenesis and sign and symptoms sections
  • Liked his 'other similar defects' table. Explains the information quite well.
  • Very well researched assignment.

--Z3291622 01:23, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • Picture under "management" is not explained.
  • Introduction properly touches on all the topics elucidated later without crossing over too much.
  • History is made relevant, linking it to Signs and Symptoms as well as Aetiology.
  • Pathogenesis needs more references, as could Signs and Symptoms.
  • The layout of Diagnosis At Birth is peculiar.
  • Signs and Symptoms could use more demonstrative pictures.
  • Glossary is fairly comprehensive.
  • Use of related diseases section is interesting, but perhaps should be included within Diagnosis under "Differential diagnoses" or something similar....

--z3290689 00:28, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review for Group 3

  • The first paragraph of the introduction could be inversed so it can actually start with what Klienfelters syndrome.
  • Introduction seems a bit long, making it a bit briefer will capture the audience’s attention better.
  • Within the history section the dates should be in bold so that it is easier to follow the information in this section. However, the history does give a good background to the syndrome.
  • Table with major advancements is well done
  • Epidemiology includes alot of information that doesn’t relate to epidemiological studies, and rather talk about clinical manifestations of people with the syndrome. Maybe put this type of information under another title.
  • Figure 4 in the aetiology section should be explained more so that readers could understand what they are looking at.
  • The genetics section under the aetiology is interesting, but is it necessary for it to be there, or how does that info link to Klienfelters Syndrome?
  • Genetic pathogenesis is explained well. I think the two diagrams should go after the non-disjunction paragraph as it will make the page look better. Also you could talk about how this problem produces the problems for the patients throughout their life.
  • Good use of table and dot points in the signs ans symptoms page. It will look good if you have a picture for all categories as you already have 2.
  • In the diagnosis section, a little effort should be made to explain how karyotyping occurs as it will make that part better. Other than that the section is good
  • I like the ‘other similar defects’ section as it allows the reader to compare and contrast klienfelters with other diseases
  • Current research presents a picture to the reader about the current research area for klienfelters.
  • Referencing MUST be fixed up as there is repetitive referencing seen in the list.

--Z3291317 23:43, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3

Introduction: I think you need to explain what the disease is before you explain the genetics behind it. Also, this section seems more like a summary of the whole project. I think you could change it a bit to include more general information on the background of the disease before going into detail.

History: I think this section would be good if all the text was incorporated into the timetable and some pictures added to balance out the text.

Epidemiology: Good section overall however, the pictures could be a lot bigger.

Etiology: Good section but I think the picture needs a caption to explain what the diagram is referring to.

Pathogenesis: This section is clearly explained. The pictures are great but need to be bigger.

Signs and symptoms: The table is good but I think it would look much better if you added pictures for all the sections.

Diagnosis: Similar advice to most other sections- the text is good but I think you should add some pictures to demonstrate some of the abnormalities.

Management: The picture would be good with a caption to explain what the diagram means.

Defects: The table is good but a couple of the pictures are far too small.

Current research: Good section, but again, needs some pictures! --z3291324 23:20, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3

Hi, overall, a nice project page with interesting information.

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
    • Introduction: Nice introduction, good flow and easy to read. However, image needs proper information and perhaps 'This disorder was first described by Harry F.' could be placed earlier on in the intro rather than in the middle
    • History: Nice section, very interesting
    • Epidemiology: First paragraph is good, but I feel the rest of this section doesn't quite belong here, such as the information on seizures, IQs, diagnosis. This section should focus on stats (sex/birth/ethnic/demographic/etc). Fig 2, 3 belong more in the signs and symptoms
    • Etiology: the '1:1000 male' contradicts the '1:500' given in epidemiology. Fig4 needs coyright information
    • Pathogenesis: Needs better referencing, also placing fig 5, 6 on either side doesn't look too good with the text. Perhaps place them below one another?
    • Signs: Seems a bit incomplete, it'll also be good to explain the image of 'pubertal gynecomastia'
    • Diagnosis: Sentence structure could be improved, ie. 'performed because physicians may suspect it because of clinical findings'. Information is interesting, but could be presented more clearly, perhaps in a table?
    • Similar defects: very nice, presented well with good information, easy to read
  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, lot of the images need to be formatted properly with required information
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    • overall referencing was well done, except pathogenesis needs more referencing
  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.
    • 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.
    • The information is there, but maybe from now til final assessment, you could do further research in all sections, as they do seem a little short.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

"What would improve this project...."

  • better page layout
  • glossary: sorry, but I feel the alphabet subheadings here are not very effective as you have it in alphabetical order anyway

--z3291643 22:01, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3:

•Good subheading structure, the page flows nicely

•Some parts of the introduction need to be reworded and it should start with an explanation of Klinefelter’s rather than the description of meiosis which is i think is unnecessary at the very beginning of the page.

•Detailed history in the text section, however is the timeline finished? Research after 1970 needs to be completed.

•Glossary needs to be completed, and i’m not sure if you need the separate headings for each letter in the glossary as it spreads it all out a lot.

•Lots of the references are repeated

--z3332183 21:25, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment Group 3 Klinefelter's Syndrome

  • Your introduction is interesting and a good summary of the page
  • The history is good however could use a picture
  • The images under 'Epidemiology' have quite poor resolution, can hardly read them
  • The rest of the page looks great and I have no more to add.
  • It is easy to read, well balanced text and pictures and informative

--Tahmina Lata 20:54, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3: Peer Assessment

  • You have constructed an informative page about an interesting syndrome
  • At this stage it's a little text heavy, so may be you can cut it down and add some pictures instead
  • In the history section it would be great to see these dates from the table with the text blended in, so it's on chronologic flow.
  • You seem to take it very serious with the mitosis or not communicating with each other because you have four pictures of mitosis in three different sections. One picture and a good explanation would be sufficient. Then you could use the rest of the space for other pictures.
  • The table for signs ad symptoms is great, but looks a bid empty. So may be you can change the format or add some more pictures.
  • May be you could write a bid more about therapeutic options. I would find that more important then "similar abnormalities"
  • Good referencing through the section. Just change the "double referencing"
  • Overall, you page has a lot of information, may be you can balance it a little more out, communicate so you don't have "double" information and a few more pictures would be great.

--z3279511 17:08, 28 September 2011 (EST)

GROUP 3 Peer Assessment: Klinefelter's Syndrome

  • I feel that the introduction is too lengthy, it should be summarised a little more. Although the info is informative, its structure needs some work- grammar and punctuation should be reviewed and sentence structure could be improved
  • Figure 1 could use a more descriptive legend
  • Historical information is ok, maybe could be improved by extending the timeline to a more resent years, also an image wouldn't hurt, just to break up the text a little
  • epidemiology could use some proof reading to correct minor grammar mistakes e.g. "Males born with Klinefelter syndrome often fail to produce sperm, and have very low testosterone levels due to largely to them having small testes", sentence structure could also be reviewed so this section flows better (some sentences are short, but other than this, this section is informative
  • Incidence is repeated twice, maybe could stick to one section, and it's different in each section (1 in 50 000 or 1 of every 1000 male births?)
  • Aetiology (don't really know what this means), and the subheading "genetics" could be a better choice for the whole section, but info here is informative and understandable
  • I do like the links made in Aetiology, the picture in this section could use a better legend and needs to be referenced properly (no copyright statement?)
  • There is overlapping info in the Aetiology and Pathogenesis sections (both have Non-disjunction as subheading), and both have the same sort of images
  • Table in signs and symptoms is too small should be a lot bigger so detail can be seen, it also needs to be referenced properly
  • The info for signs and symptoms is good in a table, but it would be better if the table had colour so the reader can distinguish each section of the table
  • diagnosis is informative


  • Reference list needs some work, some of the references have been repeated
  • Project could be improved by finalising the glossary and maybe linking the words in the body to the glossary itself
  • Images need to be referenced properly and some need more informative legends
  • I feel some of the information is a little repetitive, maybe could read through and edit so it flows better
  • subheadings and headings could be reviewed and re-organised so page flows better
  • I do like the feature of links added throughout, maybe more would make it better

--z3331556 14:28, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3 Peer Assessment

  • Try to link your sentences in general - at times the reading is quite disjunct and difficult to read. Try to rewrite sections and see if it can be written in a more succinct manner.
  • In general, keep the images on the right hand side of the page - I know you want to break things up, but if images are kept on the left then it disrupts the paragraph lining and makes the information difficult to track with the eye (just a minor thing, this is my opinion anyway)
  • Some subsections just appear too short; is it really necessary to make a subsection for one or two sentences, as is the case of karyotyping? Try to implement all of the information into one paragraph
  • The first image requires a proper reference to the work; is there any copyright information? And also protect your hand-drawn images - they are drawn excellently, but have no copyright information (unless you are happy with the images been used straight away by other students! :) )
  • The current research section and possible treatment options section is far too brief; if this is a syndrome that causes many problems, then there should be a fair amount describing our direction of research and methods in which we can combat this syndrome. Try to find more information here!
  • Overall, a good balance of the images and format, but reconsider the structure of paragraphs and subheadings so that the entire project has a better feel. Many sections feel like they have been started with great enthusiasm, but this has burnt out over time, giving the project a feel that some sections are just left incomplete. Try to fix this!

--Leonard Tiong 09:37, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment

  • The first two paras of the introduction belongs in the genetics/etiology section. Need a broad intro to the actual syndrome and what happens in it. You don’t need to give a brief overview of all the sections, this isn’t an English essay.
  • History- break up with bullet points?
  • Figure 3 is a bit small – a bigger pic will look better I think
  • Pictures in the Pathogenesis section look funny with the text – maybe have one under the other? It just squares the text in the middle and it looks odd.
  • Don’t forget the missing pics in the signs and symptoms table
  • History/timeline table might look better in purple – keep it consistent with the others.
  • In the Current Research section, the 2nd paper that you have described is written with very colloquial language – can’t use that here! Maybe have a brief intro para about current research and where its headed etc, not just a description of papers. Also, maybe link them to other papers, e.g. This paper shows similar results to _______, surely there are similar findings in particular areas of research?
  • Fertility picture needs to be in a ‘Figure’ box with a description and explanation of what it means.

--z3332824 23:30, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3

  • I think the introduction should be a little more concise
  • History could work better if all the information was summarised in a table/timeline rather than having paragraphs then a timeline. *Also, I find it a little hard to believe that no findings have been made since the 1970s.
  • Epidemiology would probably benefit with subheadings
  • Signs and symptoms are nicely set out
  • I like that you have added a comparison of other diseases
  • Maybe add a few more researches from 2011 rather than 2010 (if possible)
  • Overall, quite a good project with some minor adjustments needed

Group 3:

  • Whilst I appreciate the introduction and its content, I feel an introduction doesn’t need to be of the same size as some of the other sections of the project. It is to give a mere idea of the condition.
  • History could be broken apart with dot points or bolded dates instead. How about a picture of Harry Klinefelter?
  • Aetiology picture has no link to the article or where it was found, and no copyright notice.
  • Pathogenesis has very little references, surely more would have been used.
  • Images in table are blank and a lot more references would have been used than shown.
  • space out the subheadings so they don’t look disjointed in diagnosis.
  • references have not been listed properly (various links for same article)

--z3291423 18:09, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3: Klinefelter’s Syndrome

  • overall look: inconsistent formatting, imbalance of text and images in some sections, appropriate headings used.
  • introduction: very broad, maybe too much detail?
  • history is well researched; I really like the timeline at the end which summarises the major advancements. But it is very short and ends in the 1970s. It could include current research/advancements.
  • Epidemiology: could benefit from a few subheadings or breaks in the text.
  • Aetiology: I really like the use of external links.
  • Signs and symptoms: works well in a table format but not sure why some cells are coloured and others are not.
  • Other similar defects: interesting addition to the webpage, allows audience to continue research. Also demonstrates extensive knowledge of the syndrome. Great idea!
  • Minor adjustment: just for convenience, glossary terms could be linked

--z3332327 16:14, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3 assessment:

  • Introduction begins in a confusing manner should begin explaining the disorder Klinefelter’s syndrome before explaining the genetic component of meiosis. Where the image was explained though would be more beneficial if the introduction have an image of the founder of the syndrome within this section or within the history heading.
  • History has clear structure with explained information of the progress with relation to the timeline of the syndrome, images would have been more useful within this sub heading to make livelier instead or too much text.
  • Epidemiology detains the male component though could explain female areas related to syndrome as well figure 3 .
  • Pathogenesis is organised with images placed in areas which bring upon confusion where fig 5 and 6 both linking to Non-disjunction, image placement beneath text would be better placement.
  • Signs and symptoms could have a little more elaboration and/or more images
  • Sub heading of diagnosis at birth needs to place either in the centre or down 1 sentenced to become more organised.
  • References should remove any repeats and the links below should be manually added to the references either under another subheading or normally
  • Glossary should be linked throughout, either linking the word to the glossary or even bolding the terms so no confusion for people without any background in the area can understand.

z3332250 23:43, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3 Peer Review

  • Well structured and organised
  • Timeline seems odd that it ends at 1970? If further information cannot be found, try to present this in a different way
  • Figure 2 and 3 could perhaps be a little bigger
  • Should a copyright statement be included in some of the images?
  • Signs and symptoms table is great
  • Some duplication of information throughout page-unnecessary
  • Video link is a nice extra
  • Well balanced text, images, and tables/graphs
  • Overall, a well written page and visually appealing

--Fleur McGregor 18:48, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Comments on Group Project 3

Group 3

  • Introduction seems a bit wayward to begin with. Maybe introduce the syndrome first and then briefly explain meiosis, it just seems a bit indirect. I like how the intro touches on some aspects to be described later in the page but, good work.
  • History section could be organised a bit better I think, the combination of text and timeline is good but there must be a balance, right now there’s a big block of text and a teeny timeline
  • People might have already said this but I think the epidemiology section is too broad and covers topics outside of its section (clinically diagnosed characteristics and such)
  • Aetiology – I definitely like this section, the image is perfect and relates to the non-disjunction paragraph, information provided here is clear and easy to understand.
  • Pathogenesis – maybe consider reformatting the images so that the information under ‘Anaphase Lagging’ is easier to read, and the heading ‘Nondisjunctiom’ is not in the middle, would add to continuity and the flow of the entire page if all headings were aligned to one side
  • Other Similar Defects – this table is really hard to read, but the information is good, although it does need to be referenced properly
  • Nice glossary and current research headings, I don’t really see anything to fix. Good job guys.

--z3331469 06:58, 29 September 2011 (EST)


  • Smooth flow between headings and subheadings throughout the page.
  • Timeline included provides a good summary of the block of text above it. Gives a reader a choice to read the summarised timeline or the block of text containing more details.
  • The video links under Aetiology/Non-disjunction is very appropriate.
  • The overall formatting of the page is well-done and neat.


  • Introduction is a little bit too detailed. It should clear but concise.
  • There is a lot of duplication of references.
  • Some of the images did not include copyright statement which allows wiki users to re-use the image e.g. Figure 1

Specific corrections:

  • What is aetiology?
  • ”These are anaphase lagging and nondisjunction. The latter of the two, nondisjunction, takes place more often.” Any statistics for this? If there is, it will be good to include it.
  • Some of the signs and symptoms are not referenced.

--Z3389806 07:08, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3

  • Introducton: the beginning is a bit to abrupt, very nice image, otherwise good content
  • History: very detailed information, useful timeline
  • Epdidemiology: fig.3 would look better on the right side, the content is good
  • Aetiology: no copyright information for the image, good use of subheadings.
  • Pathodenesis: again, figure would look better on the right side, it disrupts the flow.
  • Signs and symptoms: good table, the images look a little lost though, so maybe place them on the right edge, “age and intellect” could be bigger.
  • Diagnosis: well done
  • Management: good content, nice flow
  • Similar defects: good content, but the structure could be better, maybe place the content in a table without the dots. Everything that belongs to e.g XO should start at the same hight
  • Research: interesting section, well done
  • Glossary: seems incomplete
  • Make sure to include the copyright notice in all images

--Z3387190 12:13, 25 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3

  • The first thing I noticed is that the project is very text heavy. Also- there are 4 images of mitosis. Is this really necessary? One is enough and you can use the other spaces to put other images in
  • The introduction gives a nice, broad overview of the project. I understand immediately what is going to be said. But is there not an image of a patient to put here to draw the reader in? Maybe its just me that isn’t very excited about images of mitosis sorry.
  • The history section would work better as a list of dates and names rather than a bulk of text
  • Has there been no research since the 1970s? More recent findings need to be added to the history
  • The epidemiology is very interesting- but there is a lot of clinical manifestations here that are described later. There is a double up in information.
  • Signs and symptoms works well in a table- but more images of the condition would make it even better
  • The comparison of other conditions is excellent! Great idea.
  • Your information is there is just needs to be organised a little better and the fact that you have double ups on information and pictures indicates that there may not be any communication in the team- either that or laziness to find a different picture. Look forward to seeing your final project!

Group 3

  • Good over all structure with the use of headings and sub headings. A very interesting syndrome and the page is easy to read.
  • I think the intro could be condensed a little, as it should get straight to the point.
  • I enjoyed reading the history section and good use of table and summary of history.
  • I like figure 1, very nice that it was done by a student!
  • figure 4 Maternal Non-Disjunction.. Is this a student drawn pic or did you use it from somewhere.. a little unclear.
  • I was nice to see sign and symptoms tabulated, which made this section very easy to read and understand. good use of picture here. Could you find anymore relating to the signs and symptoms?
  • I liked the addition of a movie link.
  • The sub heading of diagnosis were very appropriate.
  • Other Similar Defects- very interesting to add this in..
  • Interesting current research: nice that it has been summarised.
  • Make sure your reference list hasn't doubled up.
  • Just for clarity it might be nice to use the same colour table throughout the page.
  • It was good to see some of your pictures correctly labelled.

  • Introduction: Content is good, but it's a bit strange to start the introduction with an explanation about meiosis. Of course you need to include it, but generally one expects a few general sentences about the condition itself first, and then an explanation how problems in meiosis lead to it. Including a figure is good, but maybe put this one under the genetics section, and have a picture of somebody affected by the syndrome here instead?
  • History: It is one very long text, followed by a summary table under timeline. Maybe come up with a mix of the two, and make it one section? Would make keeping an overview easier. Keep the table, but put all the longer explanations you've written out under history into the table, next to the corresponding date? Content is good.
  • Epidemiology: Good, interesting content. The figures nicely break down the text. Well done!
  • Aetiology: Slight contradiction here - previously prevalance was said to be 1 in 500, now 1 in 1000? Also, you refer to Figure 1 which is all the way on top of the page - it would be nice to keep it closer to the text, in the relevant section itself. You might want to mention that MI = meiosis I and MII = meiosis II. I was also slightly surprised that you used the word "synapse" when talking about what happens between the homologous chromosomes - I might just never have come across it before (though I have taken quite a few genetics classes), but maybe double-check that? As far as I know it's called crossing over - that's what forms the chiasmata. In general, your whole explanation is very incomplete, you might wanna revise that. I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think it's very clear for someone who doesn't have a genetics background. Also, I have a majour problem with Figure 4 - the way you illustrate it, I first thought you were showing two different chromosomes, say chromosome 1 & 2, of which there are two copies present each. Cause this is how it is pictured most of the time. Your explanation under the figure made me realise that it wasn't the case, but a) you need to improve that legend and explain more, and b) I'd strongly suggest you modify your figure so that the chromosomes look more like "X"ses - that'll make it much easier to understand that you're talking about one chromosome type, and are showing the sister chromatids and not separate chromosomes. I hope this makes sense?

The genetics part is good though.

  • Pathogenesis: Why does this section contain the subsection nondysjunction again? Nice, brief explanation of anaphase lagging. The nondysjunction section, unsurprisingly, mainly repeats what has already been said before. Your figures need a legend and more explanations. What are the different colours supposed to depict? Maternal vs paternal chromosomes? You need to point out that it's the size difference that shows chrom 1 vs chrom 2. Cause I thought first the colours mean homologous chromosomes, which then wouldn't be right cause it's the homologous chromosomes that align etc. Also, I'd suggest not talking about cells having three chromosomes instead of two, cause in reality, cells have so many more pairs of chromosomes than 2, instead maybe just say, 1 cell contains both of the homologous chromosomes instead of just one at the end of MI. You seem to be depicting a recombination event in Figure 6 - why? Does it have any relevance to this part? There's no mention of it in the text. Sorry this sounds terribly critical - good effort though!
  • Signs & Symptoms: Maybe explain more, and not just include a list with bullet points?
  • Diagnosis: Put the "featured imagine" right next to where it is mentionned? Otherwise seems fine to me.
  • Management: Looks good.
  • Similar Defects: Maybe rename it Syndromes instead of Defects? I was confused for a second that you were going to talk about further defects that affect KS patients, instead of similar diseases. Otherwise, looking good.
  • Current research: Nice long explanations of the research, though there surely are more than 3 current papers about this out there?
  • Glossary: How do we know which words from the sections can be found in the glossary? More terms could also be included.
  • References: Needs fixing. One and the same reference appears multiple times in the list.

Peer Assessment: Group Project 3

  • The introduction is informative, however I think that the small paragraphs at the end detract from the section as a whole. It would be better to integrate these more so that they flow on from the previous text.
  • The history section provides both detailed information and a timeline, which makes the historical stages easy to comprehend and refer back to.
  • Is the image in the section on aetiology drawn by a student? If not, then copyright information and referencing needs to be included.
  • In the section on diagnostic procedures, the image could be placed on the right for ease of reading.
  • The figure in the signs and symptoms section and the figures in the epidemiology section are too small.
  • Using colour borders in the signs and symptoms table would make it a bit clearer.
  • The links to animations and a movie are great uses of additional material.
  • Under the information in some of the images you have uploaded, you still need to add {{Template:2011 Student Image}}.
  • The references should not be duplicated and can instead be linked together using the 'multiple instances on a page' editing guidelines:

--z3217345 13:28, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3 Assessment

  • The Meiotic Non-disjunction jpg doesn’t have the proper citing or information about future referencing abilities.
  • In the history section, I like how the occurances are both described in detail and set forth in an easy to read table format. Very organized.
  • In the Aetiology section, where is the referencing for the Non-disjunction videos? Is video copyrighted?
  • The Aetiology section and Pathogenesis sections seem to contain almost identical information. Are both necessary, or could they be combined/ one deleted?
  • If you decide to keep the Non-disjunction videos, are the pictures in the Pathogenesis section necessary? Or do they just become redundant?
  • In the Epidemiology section, both pictures need to be enlarged; they are so small I can’t make a distinction as to what’s on them.
  • Signs and Symptoms- This section overall looks very good as far as information goes. The only thing I would suggest is to separate the different age sections a little bit more; their symptoms look to be running together from group to group. Also, try increasing the picture sizes, as they (especially the first one) is difficult to read.
  • Again, for the video under Karyotyping, where is the referencing and copyright information on this?
  • Action of Amoratase picture- This still needs to have the disclosure statement reguarding re-use and copyright guidelines. Also needs a descriptor sentence below the picture.
  • Glossary- Shouldn’t there be references for these definitions?
  • Both the Similar Defects and Research sections seem decent. Only suggestions:

-Similar defects chart: Try bigger pictures and sentences of less length.

-Research- Try adding a picture to the section to make it more aesthetically appealing

  • 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 14:00, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3:

  • The introduction is very lengthy, some parts feel as though they would be more appropriate in other sections. The image here fits nicely with the text but it could benefit from a more descriptive legend and needs to include “{{Template:2011 Student Image}}”.
  • In the history, you begin to use the short hand “KS” without an initially stating that this is the abbreviation for “Klinefelters syndrome (KS)”. The dates that are mentioned are very detailed although it ends in 1970, were there any other breakthroughs since then? A picture of Klinefelter would be a nice touch here.
  • Epidemiology requires some proof reading as there are a couple of little mistakes and the images would have more of an impact if they were slightly larger.
  • I like how you have linked figure 1 to the non-disjunction sub-heading under aetiology. The image in this section could benefit from a coloured legend, ie. Instead of saying “Blue circles are male cells”, in a box include an actual blue circle = male cells along with the other descriptions. It also needs to be properly cited.
  • There is too much repetition between pathogenesis and aetiology, maybe discussion between these two students is needed to minimise repetition. Good hand drawn images but you need to include the student template as mentioned previously.
  • Signs and symptoms would look better in a coloured table and with more images. I don’t think it is necessary to repeat the image comparing age and intellect here.
  • Diagnosis; nice use of another form of media – a video. The abbreviation of KS in this section needs to be established first by placing KS after the first time you mention Klinefelters syndrome.
  • Management is very concise and thorough
  • Other similar defects; nice touch, it could look more appealing with the use of colour and larger images though.
  • Current research is formatted nicely and flows well

Group 3 - Peer assessment

  • The introduction is abit lengthy and choppy because some paragraphs are just 1-2 sentences. Maybe try to connect them into one paragraph and try to make it flow better.
  • The history was quite informative maybe put the timeline at the top and the text at the bottom and maybe try to add more recent dates.
  • Epidemiology - the use of figures are good and it is explained well in the text
  • Aetiology - good idea in external linking images! the information is easy to easy as it is well structured
  • Signs and Symptoms - the table is abit confusing to read, althought the information is well reduced
  • Other Similar Defects - maybe the use of lines within the table would be better to separate the columns and rows because it is abit hard to read

--z3330313 19:50, 28 September 2011 (EST)

--z3290815 15:54, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • a lot of writing and so makes the wikipage interesting to read
  • the image in the pathogenesis section needs fixing
  • the image layout is not organised well
  • needed to explain Klinefelter's disorder in simple terms. I could understand it but if it was explained in a more simple way it would be much better.

--z3060621 20:58, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 3 *The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. All main sections are present.

*The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. Under aetiology, it might be good to add a sentence or two about the cause of Klinefelter's Syndrome rather than just jump right into aneuploidy. I understand that it is the aetoilogical agent in Klinfelter's but indicating it as a cause would be good to kinda give the reader a 'flag'. It is not necessary to add the information about aneuploidy in the introduction as i think you could move that section down to a more appropriate part. If need be, just mention aneuploidy as a cause in the introduction rather than dedicate the first paragraph to it in the intro.

*Content is correctly cited and referenced. Maternal Non-Disjunction.PNG needs some references, Comparing age and intellect of a Klinefelter group a non-clinical control group.PNG, Pubertal gynecomastia.jpg, Immunoglobulin levels in 15 girls with Turner Syndrome.png and Karyogram of male with 47, XYY Syndrome.png needs to be correctly referenced. duplication of references need to be fixed. More references need to be included when there is a huge chunk of text or it looks very much like you got everything from one source only.

*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 drawings - explanations are understandable.

*Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. There is a significant reference list but not enough in-text referencing.

*Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. A lot of content on genetic problems, maybe put something in about development of embryo (if applicable)?

*Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. Has shown development and editing to be based on the above guidelines although some smaller details could be fixed.

--z3329495 21:11, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Hey i have been looking for a profile pic for some time and none have come up. So prob better if you don't look for it because I am afraid that you will waste time. Nice! birthday cake :) I should do that for my dad's bday which is coming up. Anyways see you tomorrow --Dona Cho 23:55, 21 September 2011 (EST)

Hey Dona, thats a good idea! i like all the pics that you have added, and pathogenesis looks good! I just baked my dad a birthday cake and planning on doing some work on this now. So i will probably be up for a while. I am also looking for pics of H. Klinefelter. Good work!--Souti Khalil 21:12, 21 September 2011 (EST)

I am looking for a profile picture of Mr Klinefelter. I think it will be good to put one in in the introduction section. I am having trouble finding any - but you do come across one pls put one up -I think it will look great! --Dona Cho 20:19, 21 September 2011 (EST)

Guys I thought that it would look good if all the images were order 'figure 1, figure2...' Just so that it all looks uniform Hope your ok with it but if you don't like it you can just change it back.

--Dona Cho 17:52, 21 September 2011 (EST) :)

That looks interesting, but I'm not really up to adding any of that tonight. Feel free to add whatever you like. --Elisabeth Karsten 22:57, 14 September 2011 (EST)

Hi guys ;)

I was just reading some stuff - found some interesting info related to management (I think it is liz?)

The part of the review is as follows:

'Decreased energy and libido, which are associated with postpubertal testosterone deficit, improve with hormone therapy and often are accompanied by improved confidence and sense of well-being.Androgen therapy should be started when there is direct laboratory evidence of a testosterone deficit or when hypergonadotrophism, which suggests such a deficit, is present. This may occur by the time the patient begins middle school...

Because gynecomastia predisposes men to breast cancer—the frequency of breast cancer is 20 to 50 times greater than in men who do not have Klinefelter syndrome1,2—monthly breast self-examination should be encouraged. If necessary for cosmetic reasons, gynecomastia may be treated surgically.'

The review also mentioned something about 'cryopreservation' so that the precious sperm can be stored and used for later IVF.

If the above sound interesting, it might be good reading the review article (particularly the management section. Follow the link below for the review.

ps. I dont think I will be sleeping much tonight!!

--Dona Cho 22:32, 14 September 2011 (EST)

I don't think we can use those pictures, unfortunately. Safest to stick with papers and hand-drawn I think. The timeline looks really really good. If anything, I would be inclined to put a bit less info in the main bit of history and focus on that time line. I think it's a nice visual respresentation of the information. --Elisabeth Karsten 21:17, 14 September 2011 (EST)

I found this website which has alot of picture's of KS, and there are only a few copyright statements, can we use them? [1]

Haha, I just saw them! thanks for that! I just edited the history and the timeline. Is the information in the timeline just repetitive of what i have written, should i just remove it? --Souti Khalil 20:09, 14 September 2011 (EST)

It did end up happy in the end lol. Yeh they look really good. We're allowed to add links to our page, so I think that'd be best. I'll put those on now. Thanks! --Elisabeth Karsten 18:46, 14 September 2011 (EST)

Thanks for fixing up the table in signs and symptoms, it looks great!

That video was mean, i was eating when i watched it and i felt so sorry for the little boy, i couldnt watch the rest. :(

If you think we need an animation i found these two websites, but i have no idea of how we would put them on to our page.

[[2]] [[3]] --Souti Khalil 18:09, 14 September 2011 (EST)

That video is so funny! I was laughing to the point of tears while watching this! I don't think Dr. Hill would be too happy if we added the video to our webpage though. Great job Liz once again with the editing. Keep up the good work!--Robert Klein 15:22, 14 September 2011 (EST)

Hey everyone, I just uploaded our 1 Wikipedia image. It's the karyotype of Klinefelter's syndrome. If anyone founds anything better on Wiki, just make sure you say something and take that one off. --Elisabeth Karsten 09:52, 14 September 2011 (EST)

So I found this video, it's super cute and lame. But I think it's a nice representation? Not sure how applicable it is though... --Elisabeth Karsten 10:08, 14 September 2011 (EST)

Signs and Symptoms by Age Group.PNG

Thanks Liz! I really loved the intro and the picture that you created! Maybe we don’t have to remove it, however I will also be on the lookout for a picture which may better suit the introduction. In the meantime, I was thinking maybe we should order the subsections better, for example; Introduction, History, Epidemiology, Aetiology, Pathogenesis, Signs and symptoms, diagnosis, management, other similar defects and then current research. I just think we should explain the cause and pathogenesis of the disease before the signs and symptoms and diagnosis.

Lastly, I found a table on a website and have created a similar one on signs and symptoms. I'll just upload it here, and we can decide if we want to use it.

That is all. --Souti Khalil 13:13, 12 September 2011 (EST)

That table looks really really good, though it could be easier if we upload it like the other table I put up, as opposed to a picture. I'm happy to do that if you like. And yeh that order looks good too, I'll change it now and if anyone disagrees they can change it back. --Elisabeth Karsten 22:29, 12 September 2011 (EST)

Our page is starting to looking really good!! I just fixed up the aetiology, it may need more work to be done though. Liz the picture i made, is really similar to the one you have in the introduction, is it too much?? Sorry about the delay in uploading it. --Souti Khalil 00:50, 12 September 2011 (EST)

That's fine, I kind of expected that. You use it since it fits in with your topic and I'll do another one for the intro. Aetiology looks really good, nice work!

--Elisabeth Karsten 09:07, 12 September 2011 (EST)

Hey Liz, Great job with the editing! It looks really good. I will keep on the lookout for gathering more information. --Robert Klein 20:31, 11 September 2011 (EST)

Hey everyone, I've just fiddled with the formatting of the page a bit. If you don't like it, of course feel free to change. I also changed the formatting of the table t make it a bit clearer to read, if you preferred the old one though I've saved a copy of it so just let me know. Just looking at the page, some things in epidemiology I think would fit a bit better in signs and symptoms; and eitiology and pathogenesis are a little repetive of each other which I guess we should of expected. But we'll be able to discuss it properly on this coming thursday.

--Elisabeth Karsten 20:24, 11 September 2011 (EST)

To help out a bit, I found some links to articles that are 'Open Access'. This should save time for you guys:

Hope this helps!--Robert Klein 12:23, 9 September 2011 (EST)

Looks good, thanks rob.

--Elisabeth Karsten 20:24, 11 September 2011 (EST)

I had to remove the photo from 'signs and symptoms so that I can confirm it's copyright restrictions. Sorry about that. --Robert Klein 07:44, 9 September 2011 (EST)

I edited the Epidemiology and fixed it up as best I could. As well, I found and added a picture to the signs and symptoms section to make it a little clearer. I still seem to be having difficulties with formatting. If anyone comes across charts that I can use for Epidemiology, that would be much appreciated. I still can't find anything that I can use. I will fix up the 'other similar defects' section and have it ready very soon. --Robert Klein 06:39, 9 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, sorry I've been a bit MIA recently. But yeh I agree totally, I was planning to finish off the intro once everything else is finished, but for the moment I'll make sure I'll finish off my other sections. And yeh you're ideas re:tables and diagrams sounds great. I'll have a go at drawing a couple on paint as well --Elisabeth Karsten 21:39, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Good idea Souti! As well as that, I will retype my sections and try and fix them according to what Dr.Hill wishes. Maybe for treatments, you could speak about the drugs used to manage the condition. We do need to edit the other sections and add much more content and diagrams. Perhaps a few handrawn diagrams wouldn't go astray?--Robert Klein 18:40, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I noticed earlier today that Mark Hill has put comments on our page that we need to change and improve. So i'm going to take out 'case study', and replace it with 'treatments'. What do you guys think? Make sure you have a look at what he has said. --Souti Khalil 17:44, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Rob, 'Other Similar Defects' is looking great! I am committing the next couple of hours to Klinefelter's syndrome. Do you guys think we could elaborate a bit more in the introduction, just to give a larger scope of our disease?

--Souti Khalil 11:48, 8 September 2011 (EST)

I added images to 'Other Similar Defects'--Robert Klein 07:55, 7 September 2011 (EST)

I have constructed a table for Other similar defects! I think that it should be alright, however there may not be enough info so the conditions may not properly be explained. We are still waiting on a table for signs and symptoms as well as a diagram for pathogenesis--Robert Klein 10:01, 6 September 2011 (EST)

What we should do is add a table to 'similar defects', a diagram for pathogenesis, a and a table for signs and symptoms--Robert Klein 12:49, 1 September 2011 (EST)

Glossary, Epidemiology and Similar defects have all been added. Let me know if anything else needs to be done!--Robert Klein 06:04, 1 September 2011 (EST)

Alright Everyone, For the different genotypes dotpoint, I will cover that when I complete the section to do with 'similar defects'. I have fixed up the referencing system. --Robert Klein 13:53, 27 August 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I have included a list of things that Mark Hill emphasised in regards to our group project in the lab today;

- Different genotypes

- Animal models

- Review articles

- Importance of how the disease comes about (pathogenesis).

So, by next Thursday our main page should have plenty of content under each subheading.  --Souti Khalil 14:14, 25 August 2011 (EST)

Hey Guys, I have added a discussion tab for any enquires and updates on the progress of our assessment, as well as a referencing tab (or whatever they are actually called) at the bottom of the page. So for each section, if anyone finds relevant articles/images etc. they can place it there. Oh, and please remember to add new content to the top. --Souti Khalil 00:53, 18 August 2011 (EST)

Hey Guys, Sorry to be a bother. I am having trouble referemcing properly in the Wiki format, as what can be seen in my Epidemiology piece and also my messing up of the reference list. Would one of you mind showing me how to fix this problem? Thanks so much and I will have the piece on 'other similar defects' prepared by Saturday. The glossary will be uploaded on Monday. --Robert Klein 05:40, 18 August 2011 (EST)

Referencing PMID is the reference number that you need

without the ':' will act as an link to the article --Dona Cho 12:51, 25 August 2011 (EST)


If you find any good papers relating to someone elses topic, you can put them under these subheadings to help out.

Hey guys! this is a publication which seem to be pretty good!! --Dona Cho 12:54, 25 August 2011 (EST)



Natural history of seminiferous tubule degeneration in Klinefelter syndrome[1]

Signs and Symptoms


Abramsky L, Chapple J.47, XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) and 47,XYY: estimated rates of and indication for postnatal diagnosis with implications for prenatal counselling. Prenat Diagn. 1997;17:363–368.

Bojesen A, Juul S, Gravholt CH.Prenatal and postnatal prevalence of Klinefelter syndrome: anational registry study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88:622–626

Klinefelter Syndrome


Hey guys, it's Dona. I put my name down for this section. I will try to get mine done by the end of this week. :)

--Dona Cho 17:23, 24 August 2011 (EST)




Case Study

Similar Defects

Current Research Check this out!!--Robert Klein 05:03, 1 September 2011 (EST)



  1. <pubmed>16172111</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>21342258</pubmed>


Magnetic Resonance of Head MRI from patient with Down Syndrome and Klinefelter's Syndrome

--Souti Khalil 23:57, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Klinefelter's Syndrome

--Elisabeth Karsten 23:31, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Klinefelter's Syndrome patient testicular sample

--Robert Klein 10:17, 16 August 2011 (EST)

Facial dysmorphic features in a child with double aneuploidy—Down syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome

--Dona Cho 20:35, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Topic Choice

Hey guys, so after having a look at that list I quite like the sound of

  • Anencephaly or
  • Klinefelter's syndrome

There's loads of resources for Klinefelter's syndrome, but I think Anencephaly sounds really interesting. It's a type of neural tube defect, so we may even be able to do that as a topic - neural tube defects (it's on the list as well). Just let us know what you think, thanks guys!

I've just attached a review for each

Klinefelter Syndrome

Neural Tube Defects or Anencephaly

--z3289066 09:32, 6 August 2011 (EST)

Hey Everyone, I am leaning towards Klinefelter syndrome as it seemed interesting to learn about. I found a couple of articles on the internet which explore more the epidemiology of the condition amongst the population. Liz, I read through your artiles and they were quite interesting in the way that they explored the genetics behind the condition. We will be able to perhaps link these in with the epidemiology to make our argument more convincing.

Below is a review article:


The Research Article:


Both articles explore more the epidemiology of klinefelter's syndrome as I felt that it would be interesting to look at its prevalence, and frequency of distribution within a population. The first review article that I hasve linked to explores the frequency of Klinefelter's syndrome in a population along with various other genetic anomalies.

--z3289991 07:02, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Yeh that sounds good to me, if anyone has any objections just let us know. We can figure out exactly what we want in the page on thursday, but yeh should def's talk about the epidemiology.

--z3289066 14:53, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hey guys!

I think that Klinefelter's syndrome is definitely an interesting disease and it has lots of resources. I think we still need a plan B though, a few other diseases which I thought were really interesting are; - Thalassaemia - Anencephaly (good pick Liz!) - Spina Bifida I found a really good review article on Klinefelter’s syndrome, although it’s pretty dated. [6] [7]

I shall see you all thursday!

--z3289829 22:15, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, this is dona - I guess I am the last one to write on the board (sorry!)

I personally like the topic; neural tube defects. Reasons are 1. there is so much information because it is an umbrella term that includes many conditions like spina bifida and anencephaly and 2. we will be learning the developing of the neural tube next week in lecture - so it will not be difficult to understand the etiology of neural tube defects

Here are the links:

review article [8]

research article [9]

p.s Hey could everyone identify themself by writing their name before writing on this discussion forum, that way people know whose talking. (please)

--Z3289301 17:23, 10 August 2011 (EST)


  • Description/Introduction - Liz
  • History - Souti
  • Signs and Symptoms - Dona
  • Epidemiology - Rob
  • Treatment - Liz
  • Eitology - Souti
  • Pathogenesis - Dona
  • Similar defects - Rob

I was thinking it'd be good to also do a topic on recent research, I'm happy to do that one, and should also do a glossary. So we should have someone finalise that, but it'd be really helpful if everyone could just add words in they think would be good as you go. Does anyone want to volunteer for editing that? Just put your name in the spot below so everyone knows.

  • Recent research - Liz
  • Glossary - Rob
  • Diagnosis - Dona
  • Case Study - Souti

--Elisabeth Karsten 12:15, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Hey Guys, I have uploaded an image to the Epidemiology section of the Group webpage, however it appears to have distorted the whole webpage in that all the other categories below epidemiology have been pushed to the side. Also, I am having trouble trying to enlarge the image. Do you know how I can fix this problem? The table was referenced appropriately. Cheers

--z3289991 10:14, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Hey, yeh that should be fine for the moment, don't worry too much about the formatting. You can fix it, but it'll be easier to do once there's text there too move around it. There should be a page explaining all the details about picture formatting, but I can't qutie remember how to do it off the top of my head. Is that the size of the original image? Because that could be part of the problem.

--Elisabeth Karsten 12:09, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Oh I've just realised what's happened, see how you've put the file name then "thumb"? The default for thumb is to make it slightly smaller and move to the right where it will wrap around whatever text is there. You can try [File name|thumb|left|name] if you want it on the left, or else instead of 'left' you can say 'center'. But it's gotta be 'center', not 'centre' (I think). Or else you don't have to use thumb at all, and just leave it out completely.

Hope this helps.

--Elisabeth Karsten 14:02, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Thanks Liz, You know what? I will add some text during next week and then play around with the formatting. You are right in your first comment, because that way I can format the picture and text properly. Thanks so much for your help though. --Robert Klein 15:21, 13 August 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessments

  • Great amount of depth, you have covered each subheading quite well
  • It was great to see a comparison to other similar defects
  • Non-disjunction is discussed twice, can it be summarised into just the one section?
  • In the signs and symptoms section, the images seem to be arranged in a disorderly fashion, maybe place them elsewhere. Also your image comparing age and intellect is extremely small. The sizing of a larger majority of your photos needs to b adjusted
  • You’re referencing needs to be tidied up; there are multiple entries from the same source that tends to clutter your reference section.
  • There were only two examples of management strategies, are there anymore out there? Maybe you could do a comparisons table for this section

--z3332629 15:23, 22 September 2011 (EST)