Difference between revisions of "Talk:2011 Group Project 4"

From Embryology
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
==Peer Review==
 
==Peer Review==
 +
 +
'''Group 4: Peer Assessment'''
 +
* Your page has a good balance of text, images and tables
 +
* I like that your introduction is brief and to the point
 +
* You history section is the best one have seen so far, it looks good and it easy to read
 +
* The image in the pathogenesis has no copyright information
 +
* In clinical manifestations are quite important I think and your section seems a little weak in comparison to the rest
 +
* Treatment: I'm sure the table was a lot of work but it is quite complex ad all the drug names make me a bid dizzy. May be you can shorten it to the most relevant?
 +
*Overall the page has a good content and it's fun to read. The diagrams and drawings are great --z3279511 17:09, 28 September 2011 (EST)
 +
  
 
'''GROUP 4: Huntington's Disease'''
 
'''GROUP 4: Huntington's Disease'''

Revision as of 17:09, 28 September 2011

Group 4: User:z3389806 | User:z3290270 | User:z3290379 | User:z3290558

Plagiarism

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

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

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

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

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


Peer Review

Group 4: Peer Assessment

  • Your page has a good balance of text, images and tables
  • I like that your introduction is brief and to the point
  • You history section is the best one have seen so far, it looks good and it easy to read
  • The image in the pathogenesis has no copyright information
  • In clinical manifestations are quite important I think and your section seems a little weak in comparison to the rest
  • Treatment: I'm sure the table was a lot of work but it is quite complex ad all the drug names make me a bid dizzy. May be you can shorten it to the most relevant?
  • Overall the page has a good content and it's fun to read. The diagrams and drawings are great --z3279511 17:09, 28 September 2011 (EST)


GROUP 4: Huntington's Disease

  • Intro has good summary of the disease, however the first paragraph is a little too technical, could you maybe simplify it a little so you don't lose the reader right at the start (reference 5 is missing though)
  • History is succinct and summarised well, i like the quote included, could you have gone a little further with the timeline? (maybe include some of the more recent developments), maybe the timeline could be better formatted in a table
  • Good info from a variety of sources in epidemiology, good use of tables, I like how prevalence has been compared and how the table is explained (one little thing: could you maybe find more statistics for Australia?)
  • Inheritance image needs student template added and maybe made a little bigger so detail can be seen
  • Genetics section is informative but could use an image of the gene maybe
  • Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis section is well researched and good summary is provided. I like how key words have been highlighted. images need fixing (more descriptive legend is needed for the first image and what happened to the second image?
  • I don't think you need to explain what the disease is again in the clinical manifestation segment (don't want to sound repetitive), image in this section isn't very clear, I feel that this section is a tad incomplete-maybe some expansion is needed e.g. classes 2 and 3 could be expanded on more
  • I feel that diagnosis section could go further up? This section is very informative, but could be summarised a little more Some of the images in this section need better explaining, good balance of text and images in this section
  • good use of table in treatment section, however more info could be provided as to how these drugs help the disorder
  • Current/Future Research is very up to date, images here again need more description

Overall:

  • it is evident that this project has been extensively researched
  • good use of subheadings and headings
  • maybe include the acronyms in the glossary and it would be good if glossary words were linked to text
  • make sure all images include the student template required and legends of some images need to be expanded (more info on what the image is about)
  • fix repetitive sentences
  • good balance of images and text, good use of tables

--z3331556 15:27, 28 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Assessment Group 4

  • Second sentence of intro is WAY too detailed for the intro, it means very little as the disease has not yet been explained to us and is too technical – OR, keep it but explain it in a more general way.
  • What do you mean by familially or sporadical development? Define what you mean by this (intro)
  • Timeline – events need to be explained. E.g. Venezuela Project – what is this? Why is it significant? (this is needed for most of the history entries)
  • HTT and normal functions – can you explain what some of the processes are? E.g. dynactin complex, clathrin-mediated endocytosis are?
  • Calcium signalling in pathogenesis – maybe explain why the calcium signalling pathway is important?
  • The video file – make sure you write a little para about it. It has a new headings – shouldn’t it be a subheading?
  • The paragraph of ‘Imaging’ in diagnostic tests needs to be pushed so its under the pics from neuropathology
  • Tetrabenazine – I think have an intro sentence about it to highlight that this is the most commonly used one, as you only discuss it in depth (as a drug treatment) – unless you are going to add in explanations of other drugs?
  • In Current/future research, refer to the pics on the RHS if they are relevant, otherwise I think they need to go somewhere else
  • Overall comment: its good, lots of research, but even as someone who has a background in bio, we still don’t know everything about everything, so I think as you go, explain some of the more complicated processes so you can really understand what is going on.

--z3332824 11:48, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4: Huntington’s Disease

Group 4 Peer Review

  • Good introduction, history seems adequate - although the timeline stops at 2002? Is there anything after this?
  • Nice table for epidemiology; although some terms require explaining
  • Excellent student-drawn diagrams and genetics section with a good balance between the text, bullet points and images. One image has been removed so be sure that that is re-uploaded!
  • Video section: Formatting is a bit of a pain to read when the left hand margin keeps shifting with the images being placed here. Fix this please so that it is easier to track the page with our eyes.
  • Treatment section is overwhelming, whilst some might have said that it looks great (and it really does), to suddenly be hit with such a huge table is exhausting. Perhaps shorten this section by mentioning that there is only treatment available for the symptoms, list them, and then link to an image containing the table in its entirety.
  • Current/Future research section seems a bit short.
  • Overall, it looks like an excellent project that has had a lot of thought put into it. Well done guys :)

--Leonard Tiong 10:25, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Initial thoughts, was wow! Clearly immense time and effort was put into this! Loved the structure of the headings and sub-headings.

  • Introduction: Top notch, just needs an image to complete it.
  • History: Nice use of the quote box, this section was done very well, except BOLD the years. Personally, I would have liked it more if the timeline itself was in a coloured table, no biggie.
  • Epidemiology: Add “(Australia)” After Tasmania? Or just listing countries would be better? Overall, nicely done.
  • Genetics: “Inheritance” part feels a little too short. Preferred if the image had black text over a white background. Everything else was great!
  • Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis: The space between the purple words and commas could be removed. The purple colour, made me think they were hyperlinks, maybe chose either to bold or colour the words, as having both is a bit much.
  • Clinical Manifestations: The features would look better in a table, in my opinion. I like the image, very nice indeed! Good summary.
  • Diagnostic Tests: Done well, though compared to the rest of the webpage, it looks very insignificant. I suggest adding more information!
  • Video: Fix the formatting please!
  • Treatment: Nice table, informative. The “Tetrabenzine” section, the text needs some formatting, sentences are cut off to the next line for some reason, to be honest Medications and Therapies seem to be most important part, so they should maybe be expanded on?
  • Glossary: Looks good, just a few full stops missing!

--Lisa Xiao 01:24, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 4

  • Very good introduction
  • History: looks very nice, but the layout of the quote disrupts the page. I think it would be better to use bold letters, good idea though.
  • Epidemiology: nice section, useful tables
  • Genetics: good detailed content and drawings
  • Pathogenesis: do not bold words in only one section, it disrupts the whole picture, good use of sub- headings.
  • Clinical manifestations: good summary of the symptoms in the drawing, the classes and the five specific features would look better in a table, otherwise good section
  • Diagnostic tests: the video subheading needs to be fixed, really irritating. Very detailed, I would put all images to the same side
  • Treadment: mechanism of tetrabenazine inhibition image could have been done with more effort
  • Research: very nice clear section

--Z3387190 21:27, 27 September 2011 (EST)


group peer assessment

  • Introduction is well structured though image of the Huntington gene protein would be more beneficial to where I’m looking relating to genetics
  • Genetics could expand more on the inheritance and the Huntington gene
  • Role in transcription sub heading image removed
  • Diagnostic test image needs to placed in correct section and the video should be placed at the end of the section, placement of the video cause confusion of the other diagnosis tests
  • Treatment should have an introduction which introduces the drug used to manage diseases and therapies, better layout where most commonly used drug form management and therapies following the table to show alternative treatment.
  • Current/future research should have some future research and images placed have no description which research project image belongs to
  • References contain mistakes with repetitions and blanks also some done incorrectly such as reference “3” where not properly inputted on the wiki page
  • Glossary was not linked to the web page as well while reading was lost without referring to a dictionary due to no indications definition is in the glossary

z3332250 23:46, 26 September 2011 (EST)


Group 4 Peer Review

  • Punchy introduction-well done
  • Timeline under history was excellent
  • Seemed very scientific and wordy at times-a lot of detail is unnecessary; “less is more”
  • Great balance of text and images-very readable
  • Page flowed well in a logical manner
  • Diagnosis section is very well done however there seems to be too much content/focus relative to the rest of the page. Perhaps add some more to other sections or make this section more concise?
  • An extensive glossary and reference list-thorough research
  • I learnt a lot from this page so well done!
  • Overall, an impressive page. A few more things to tweak to make it excellent.

--Fleur McGregor 19:13, 26 September 2011 (EST)


Group 4 Critique

  1. • Introduction was quite good
  2. • History was good. I liked the timeline
  3. • Tables in the epidemiology were good
  4. • The genetics was clearly explained
  5. • Pathogenesis was really good. I quite liked it
  6. • Clinical manifestations is good
  7. • Diagnostic tests could be more detailed
  8. • Overall, quite a well written project. Well done. Maybe add a little more about the medications.

--Robert Klein 18:47, 24 September 2011 (EST)

Huntington's Disease

  • The intro and history look really good, I like the timeline and the quote box
  • What year was the information in the table in 'Epidemiology' sourced? Because from looking at the references, it seems to be within a 20yr period. Is this enitrely accurate to compare these?
  • What are HTT and HD halotypes (in 'Epidemiology')? You've only put 'halotypes' in the glossary, you also need to a give a brief definition within the text, not just glossary
  • Nice image in 'Genetics', lots of good easy to understand information there as well
  • You need to fix the file under 'Role in Transcription Inhibition'
  • The diagnosis section looks really good, make sure you get rid of that subheading for the video though
  • Interesting table in 'Treatment', however the section on 'Tetrabenazine' does not has complete sentences and seems a bit unnecessary. Honestly I don't really care how the drug works (ie receptors) I'm more interesting in it's implications regarding HD
  • The 'Therapies' section was good and succinct
  • Current/Future Research looks really good
  • Overall the page isn't bad, just need to confirm some details to improve it ie dates and definitions


Group 4

  • On first looking at the project it looks like there is a good text/image ratio. However an image in the introduction would work well
  • The content of the introduction is very clear and introduces the reader to the topic well
  • I really like the history section. The story makes me a little excited about the condition in a way. I am left feeling keen to know more and there is an extensive list of discoveries. There needs to be more after 2002 though. I find it difficult to believe that nothing has been found in the last 9 years.
  • The epidemiology table is a nice way of showing the data. But maybe you should put the Australian states in bold and at the top- also maybe include all of the states or Australia as a whole, not just NSW and TAS
  • There is a file in the pathogenesis that is not accessible- either get the file up or remove the link
  • The image in the pathogenesis has no copyright information
  • A couple of grammar problems in the pathogenesis that could be fixed up- full stops mid sentence for example
  • The clinical manifestations sections outlines the types of classes of manifestations but it is difficult to actually access the information on what the manifestations are. It would work well in a table with a little more detail on what the patient experiences
  • The video is put as a new subheading within diagnosis. It needs to be made into the smaller subheading because I thought diagnosis section was over but it continues underneath
  • The diagnosis section is in great detail, somewhat more detail than other sections. This is very interesting and shows that this team member worked hard on their section.
  • Good work on the project, just a little editing and formatting to make it a finished product!

Group 4

  • Nice structure of headings and subheadings, it breaks up the text and makes it a readable page. Extremely interesting topic!
  • I found the history very interesting and enjoyed the quote from Huntington.
  • maybe bold the dates in the timeline, just to make the page easy to follow. Or maybe a table could be appropriate.
  • I liked the structure of the epidemiology section and the tabulated prevalences! good work!
  • Molecular Mechanisms & Pathogenesis: unsure as to why some sentences were bolded.
  • Differential Diagnosis: very interesting I liked that you added this in.
  • Treatments table very succinct easy to understand and follow! Great!
  • Good to see that most of your references were grouped. only a few that were doubled.
  • Maybe have a continuos colour scheme for the page and type of table used.
  • Good use of tables and I like that you explained what they were about.
  • Make sure all acronyms and scientific language is in the glossary
  • good student illustrations
  • overall great ratio of text and pictures!

Group 4 Assessment

  • 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 #...
  • The information within the introduction seems to be substantial. Only suggestion would be to add a picture to add to the overall look.
  • In the history section, it was a good idea to have the single quote stand out in a colored box to itself. First time I’ve seen this. Looks professional. I question though, if all the events within the timeline are absolutely necessary…
  • Epidemiology- Both tables are well organized and look extremely professional. Good information within this section, although it might be a good idea to reference a few more not-so-common terms in the glossary, such as SNP’s and others which may not be common knowledge for all.
  • The Genetics section is well formatted with what I believe is the vital information needed in this section. Only complaint is the first picture (Inheritance Pattern…) doesn’t have the copyright information claiming that it is okay to use this image.
  • The “Key cellular pathogenic mechanisms in HD” image likewise does not have the copyright information to verify its legal usage.
  • Molecular Mechanisms and Pathogenesis section- Very well formatted and aesthetically appeasing. Why are some of the words in purple though? Are they meant to be defined the glossary, or just key points? “The Mutant Huntington gene…” file is also not on the page… Where is it?
  • Diagnostic Tests  Research – I have no complaints. These sections look immaculate.
  • In the glossary, try having a bullet list and also having the words within the wiki page to link to its definition in the glossary.
  • Some of the references are repetitive. Make sure to fix this so they all link to a single reference instead of numerous ones of the same resource.
  • Overall, good content within the page and very appealing visually. Just minor editing needs to be done I think. Good job!

--Z3391078 14:31, 27 September 2011 (EST)


Peer Assessment: Group Project 4

  • The introduction and history sections are concise and well formatted.
  • A few of the points in the timeline would be improved by containing a bit more information such as 'Mendel's work' and 'The Venezuala project'
  • The tables used in the epidemiology section are clear and highly informative.
  • The abbreviation HTT is used throughout the epidemiology section before it is stated what it means in the genetics section. This should be changed.
  • The picture related to transcription factors needs to be fixed so that it can be displayed.
  • The section entitled 'Video of Huntington's disease patient' should have a more appropriate heading to encompass the rest of the written information in that section.
  • Under the information in some of the images you have uploaded, you still need to add {{Template:2011 Student Image}}.
  • Some of the references are duplicated. They can instead be linked together using the 'multiple instances on a page' editing guidelines: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=References#Multiple_Instances_on_Page.
  • Overall the project is highly informative, well written and formatted.

--z3217345 21:34, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Discussion

Hey Liz, I posted on the fb page regarding the genetics and pathogenesis part. The student drawn image I'm okay with doing yes. So far I was thinking about doing a picture showing the autosomal dominant nature of the gene. Basically a "tree diagram" of what happens when one parent is affected and the offspring has a 50% chance of inheriting HD. But I'm okay at drawing so if someone else has something better they'd like me to draw I'm okay with it. :) Girls please check fb, bit of a crisis.

)

--Maeda Sadeghpour 06:00, 14 September 2011 (EST)


hey girls, i think we really need to start hurrying things along with our project. Maedeh, i know you said that peer reviews arnt getting marked, but we need to have our project FINISHED by then because after that we are only making finishing touches based on teh peer reviews. Also, are you still doing the student drawn image? Ta

--Elizabeth Blanchard 12:41, 13 September 2011 (EST)

Genetics + Pathogenesis

Yea I think so, it would make it more relative. If anyone comes across any studies just post the link here or on fb. :)

--z3290270 23:36, 24 August 2011 (EST)

Hmm, are epidemiological studies on HD? If there is, we should add. It will make our webpage more comprehensive. And I don't mind doing that section.

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 20:24, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Girls, do you think we need an 'Epidemiology' heading??

--Elizabeth Blanchard 17:25, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Introduction + Clinical Manifestations.

--Lisa Lee 14:42, 23 August 2011 (EST)

Current + Future Research & Diagnostic Tests.

--Elizabeth Blanchard 09:30, 22 August 2011 (EST)

Sharalyn: History & treatment

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 20:15, 20 August 2011 (EST)


White blood cell populations from Huntington's Disease patients

White blood HD.gif

--z3290558 23:46, 17 August 2011 (EST)

Establishment of HD hybrid cell line

Establishment of HD hybrid cell line.jpg


(A) First polar body of mature rhesus macaque oocyte was removed by gentle squeezing through a slit of zona pellucida (A-a). Staining of 1st polar body DNA (arrowhead) and oocyte DNA (arrow) (A-b). HD monkey skin cell was placed under the zona pellucida (black arrow) (A-c). Reconstructed oocyte with HD monkey skin cell (A-d; yellow arrow) was placed between two electrodes for electrofusion (A-d). (B) Day 12 hatching blastocyst derived from HD monkey hybrid embryo (B-a; arrow indicated ICM). HD monkey hybrid blastocyst outgrowth at six days after attached onto feeder cells (B-b). High magnification of selected region (inset) of the ICM outgrowth (arrowhead). HD monkey hybrid cell line (TrES1) at passage 10 (B-c). (C) G-banding analysis of TrES1. Cytogenetic analysis of TrES1 demonstrated tetraploid chromosome (84; XXXY). (D) Expression of ES-cell specific markers: Alkaline phosphatase, Oct4, SSEA4 and TRA-1-60.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2833146/?tool=pmcentrez


This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

--Maeda Sadeghpour 21:30, 17 August 2011 (EST)


Large stem cell-derived neurospheres were generated from 33-week old HD hippocampus, but not WT hippocampus.

Stem cells neurospheres drived from Huntingtons Disease hippocampus.png

--Elizabeth Blanchard 15:06, 16 August 2011 (EST)

Melatonin levels in Huntington's disease patients and controls

Melatonin levels in HD patients and controls.jpg

The diurnal melatonin rise was significantly delayed in HD patients by about 01:30 h (p = 0.048). The black bar on the abscissa indicates the dark period (23:00–7:30 h).

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 12:21, 16 August 2011 (EST)


We decided on Huntington's Disease, I believe Nur spoke to you at the end of the class. :)

--Maeda Sadeghpour 16:44, 13 August 2011 (EST)

--Mark Hill 18:28, 11 August 2011 (EST) Your group left the lab today without notifying me of your selected group topic.

Group 4 Topic: Neural Tube Defect

Research Article:

Conway S.J., Gosnell M., Rogers R., Simmons O., Snider P., Young R. (2011), Notochordal and foregut abnormalities correlate with elevated neural crest apoptosis in Patch embryos. Birth Defects Research Part A: Clinical and Molecular Teratology. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20802. Epub 2011 May 6.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21557455

Review Article:

Abdel-Hamed Z., Johnson C.A., Logan C.V. (2011), Molecular genetics and pathogenic mechanisms for the severe ciliopathies: insights into neurodevelopment and pathogenesis of neural tube defects. Molecular Neurobiology

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21110233

--z3290558 02:07, 11 August 2011 (EST)

Neural Tube Defects

Review: Padmanabhan, R. (2006). Etiology, pathogenesis and prevention of neural tube defects. Congenital Anomalies, 46(2), 55-67.

Research: Joó, J. G., Beke, A., Papp, C., Tóth-Pál, E., Csaba, A., Szigeti, Z., Papp, Z. (2007). Neural tube defects in the sample of genetic counselling. Prenatal Diagnosis, 27(10), 912-21.

--z3290270 02:34, 11 August 2011 (EST)


Review: Bassuk AG, Kibar Z. Genetic basis of neural tube defects. Semin Pediatr Neurol. 2009 Sep;16(3):101-10 [1]

Research: De Marco P, Merello E, Cama A, Kibar Z, Capra V. Human neural tube defects: Genetic causes and prevention. Biofactors. 2011 Jun 14.[2]

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 14:24, 10 August 2011 (EST)


We are doing on neural tube defects!

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 13:47, 10 August 2011 (EST)


Neural Tube Defects

Article: [1] Review: [2]

References

  1. <pubmed>19120526</pubmed>
  2. <pubmed>18182339</pubmed>

--Elizabeth Blanchard 22:25, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hi girls (: I actually managed to find some genetics-related articles on neural tube defects. It has something to do with folate and folate-related genes from what I have read so far. So how about it? Shall our website be based on neural tube defects? (:

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 08:12, 9 August 2011 (EST)

Hey girls,

So I've done a bit of research on a few of them. One of the things we need to keep in mind is that it has to relate to the learning outcomes, which I think is the embryological process, and how the genetic disorder relates to it or how its affected by it? (I tried looking it up but couldnt find it).

Here's a list of the topics I've been looking into:

Turner Syndrome: commonly known to have one missing sex chromosome, (or both) - LOTS of info on this. (only thing is, because its such a broad topic, we might have articles that contradict each other, or might not have that many embryology related new articles...?)

Klinefelter's Syndrome: the gigantic disease with the extra chromosome (XXY). there's a decent amount of info on this, but not as much as Turner.

Neural Tube defects: problems happening in the first month of baby formation because of the folate deficiency in the mother. But i'm not too sure where the genetics come into this..


Which topics have you guys been looking at? Let us know! cos we need to have some articles in 2-3days time! :)

Ye it's better to research an area instead of just one disease then, because that will give us more to talk about... especially the genetic components which Mark commented on. So I was thinking Neural Tube Defects instead. That will give us Anencephaly, Encephaloceles, Hydranencephaly, Iniencephaly and Spina bifida. ?--Maeda Sadeghpour 01:09, 8 August 2011 (EST)

You need to think about what the genetic component will be for the disease you select. --Mark Hill 23:51, 7 August 2011 (EST)

I don't think that having 4 categories will be a problem. I actually think that it will be good to have extra stuff to talk about. Have a look at the other pages from previous years, they are very elaborated so I think it's actually a good thing to have alot of things to talk about. But anyway lets decide on something so that we can post up our articles

--Elizabeth Blanchard 22:00, 7 August 2011 (EST)

Hey! I get what you mean, Maeda. Doing 4 categories can be quite heavy. Hmm, but I was thinking, since this is going to be a wikipage and the elaboration for the 'original' wikipage for spina bifida is not very deep for the 4 categories, maybe we could leverage on this weakness and make ours more detailed? :) But if you guys think it is too much, I don't mind doing the other suggestions too! Anyway, this is just a preliminary decision. It depends on the topics that other groups have chosen too. Would it be possible for us to finalise the topic by tomorrow?

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 17:18, 7 August 2011 (EST)

Hello people. I was basically trying to see which diseases had the most current information available online, and cystic fibrosis seems to be very well known. Spina Bifida is very interesting as well, my only concern with it is the 4 categories it's divided into, which I thought might make it a bit more work. What do you guys think? :)

--Maeda Sadeghpour 00:25, 6 August 2011 (EST)

Hey, girls! I'm thinking of spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Cheers!

--Nur Sharalyn Abdullah 20:26, 5 August 2011 (EST)

hey guys, had a quick look and Spina bifida and Turner's Syndrome both seem to have a decent amount of information on them

--Elizabeth Blanchard 14:26, 5 August 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessments

  • Interesting but good use of a quote
  • The introductory paragraph for the “history” section could probably be cut down or eliminated altogether
  • Great inclusion of statistics in regards to epidemiology
  • Student images were excellent, well drawn and were engaging
  • Pathogenesis section could have been placed in a table just to change up the formatting
  • The video inclusion was good and relevant
  • You’re referencing needs to be tidied up; there are multiple entries from the same source that tends to clutter your reference section.

--z3332629 15:24, 22 September 2011 (EST)