Talk:2011 Group Project 7

From Embryology

Group 7: User:z3291622 | User:z3291643 | User:z3387190 | User:z3293267


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

Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism

In particular this example:

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

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

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

Group Assessment Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
    1. Figures - good selection of figures related to group topic. I would have have liked to have seen more members of the group be involved in the image addition process, rather than mainly a single student.
    2. Tables - These tables were well-structured and included relevant information for the project. They also broke large blocks of text, giving the project a better overall appearance.
    3. Graph - Single graph and flow diagram in project. The graph described microcephaly but there did not seem to be any associated text on microcephaly in the body of the text. Flow diagram of prenatal diagnosis was linked well to the associated text. The diagram itself did not include a citation link.
    4. Headings and sub-headings structure had a good overall organisation and the project flowed well.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
    1. All figures were correctly cited, with copyright information and student disclaimer, except the flow diagram.
    2. Large number and range of sources used in preparing the project including research and review articles.
  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.
    1. Diagrams, tables and figures were interesting examples with some reasonable descriptions in their legends.
    2. Student diagrams were innovative.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
    1. Contacting a researcher for permission to use key researchers of the syndrome images provided good evidence.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
    1. Included descriptions of developmental events, diagnosis and genetic counselling.
    2. Linked to associated site pages. There could have been a wider selection on internal links, these were mostly to other student projects rather that site content.
    3. Linked to useful external sites including OMIM.
  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.
    1. Written indication on Discussion page for this criteria.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.

Figure Assessment

Page Edits 30 Sep

Changes after the review

Hey guys, do you reckon we should link a youtube angelman syndrome video in our external links section? - Nimeshi 21:52, 12 October 2011 (EST)

Hey, I had one more closer look at the symptoms section and corrected all spelling errors. And some sentences make now more sence.

Theodora Retzl 21:19, 12 October 2011(my signature doesn't work)

Hi Nimeshi, all references fixed up. You just forgot a close bracket!

--Eugene Chan 21:46, 11 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I fixed up all the references in the diagnosis section. There is one reference (number 67) which keeps stuffing up. Eugene, I did what you told me to do but it comes up as a red invalid error. How do I correct this? --Z3291622 13:03, 11 October 2011 (EST)

Thanks Eugene :) I'm glad you fixed it, the whole referencing thing confuses me. --Z3291622 20:09, 10 October 2011 (EST)

Hi Nimeshi, it's for the reference PMID 20981772 isn't it? Well we start by referring the reference to a name. In this case we'll call it "PMID20981772", as this is the format we've been doing the whole time. So instead of writing <ref> at the start, we change it to <ref name="PMID20981772"> and it should look like this:

<ref name="PMID20981772"><pubmed>20981772</pubmed></ref>

Then to continue referencing for PMID 20981772 for multiple times, you now use the code:

<ref name="PMID20981772" />

Anyways, if my explanation is confusing or just muddled, I went ahead and changed the references for you. You're welcome.

--Eugene Chan 12:49, 7 October 2011 (EST)

Oh, and I've fixed up the date in the introduction.

--Theodora Retzl 22:05, 6 October 2011 (EST)

Hey Nimeshi, thx for including the references, timetable looks good. I just wanted to fix your double refrences, but seems like you already did it.?

--Theodora Retzl 21:56, 6 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I did the references for the history. I used one reference more than once, can someone teach me how to fix it so it only comes up once on the list? Not sure how to do that. I also extended the timeline to include 2010.

--Z3291622 18:03, 6 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I tried to put the epidem. contend into a table, but it didn't look too good. So I used dot points, I think it's better this way. And I divided it into geographic regions.

--Theodora Retzl 10:38, 6 October 2011 (EST)

Hey, I added the average age for diagnosis to the epidemiology section, but I counln't find any more information.

--Theodora Retzl 16:16, 5 October 2011 (EST)

History was Nimeshi's section, so she should have all the references for this (as well as diagnosis)

--Sang Lee 20:11, 3 October 2011 (EST)

Can someone start putting the references in for the History section. I've put the one reference from, 'Puppet' children. A report on three cases (1965), but there's more dates and details that are from other sources. Thanks.

--Eugene Chan 18:20, 3 October 2011 (EST)

Hey, I've uploaded an image of EEG and reuploaded some of my images with the corrected title. For some images, you have to look at the discussion page for permissions cos that's what Mark suggested I do. I've resized images, but some (like PWS image) isn't still right. I'm also trying to locate a research article image of FISH, so if anyone comes across one that's open access, that'll be great. Thanks

--Sang Lee 12:23, 3 October 2011 (EST)

That's great work Julia, we really needed those pictures!

Alright, so I took your idea for the glossary and applied it to every glossary term when it's first mentioned. Added a few more terms and got rid of a few (signs and symptons really?), but it feels a lot more professional having the link to the Glossary. Just pity we can't do the words individually.

  • Added a brief explanation to the start of Genetic Counselling and Treatment and Management. If you want more info can you please be more specific. Picture to be added later.
  • Moved Genetic Counselling in between Diagnosis and and Treatment and Management. It makes more sense to me to be there.
  • Fixed a lot of spelling errors. Please proofread before posting. Signs and Symptons almost had to be redone by me because of the spelling errors and sentence constructions. So I fix a lot of that area.
  • Epidemiology is hard to find info. yes, I did find that one fact about males but that's all I could really find. I need help here.
  • Pictures need to be referenced properly. It's great that you got the FISH picture back, but it still hasn't been referenced at all. Where did it come from? Also, how do we reference Dr. Angelman and Dr. Williams pictures?
  • Lots of minor issues formatted by me, otherwise still a lot of work needs to be done.

--Eugene Chan 03:52, 3 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys. I've managed to get some photos of Dr Angelman and Dr Williams for the intro and history section. It was quite exciting, cos I emailed Dr Williams and he had a look at our page and sent me some pictures and up to date research papers on AS. He was very nice! --Sang Lee 17:07, 2 October 2011 (EST)

Hey, I've made a few changes to my section and linked some words to the glossary. What do you guys think? Please do similar with the rest of the page and define words in your section. Thanks --Sang Lee 10:32, 1 October 2011 (EST)

Hello! I'm posting up a summary of all the critiques made on our page, some were very helpful. Please find your relevant section and fix it up. It's been agreed upon with Theodora as well, that each individual (for their own section/s) will fix up double referencing by themselves, as well as adding words to the glossary.

  • Image:
    • Remember correct referencing, as well as adding {Template}, image description
  • Intro:
    • Add epidemiology info, DONE
    • need an image (I'll upload a face of an AS patient here): DONE
    • maybe include PWS?
  • History:
    • Needs better flow,
    • more information on 'current' status of AS, DONE
    • apparently, there's a 'Contradictions in regards to the initial date of discovery in the introduction' (please check)DONE
    • image here would be nice: DONE
  • Epidemiology:
    • explain in further detail (ie. why not so common amongst Asians?
    • also for the 'age', I think it'll be good to talk about average age of diagnosis (which I think was around 3yoa)DONE
  • Aetiology:
    • Inheritance (I'll add)
    • Genetic information
  • Pathogenesis:
    • reduce image size: DONE
    • relocate images?: DONE
  • Signs and Symptoms
    • Table; bullet points: DONE
    • complications (move to this section); are there more we could add here? : DONE
  • Diagnosis
    • referencing:DONE
    • images; reupload FISH (I'll do this), describe images, captions with images,
    • flowchart: too large maybe put as a thumb? Possibly relocate images so it flows better
    • move 'related diseases' to this section: DONE
  • Treatment and Management
    • further explanation
    • image would be nice
  • Genetic Counselling
    • further explanation
  • Research
    • need subheadings (I'll do an example, later of how I think it'll look nice, please feel free to change): DONE
  • Glossary and Referencing
    • individually fix and add to glossary

There is still a lot of work to do on our page. There are some sections such as gen counselling, research, epidemiology that isn't anyone's section in particular, so please contribute to these sections. Thanks, have a nice long weekend!

--Sang Lee 07:10, 1 October 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I'm doing a few tweaks here and there but the Diagnosis pictures are really bugging me. I've tried my best to fix the FISH (Fluorescent in situ hybridization) pic but it doesn't seem to want to cooperate with me. I figured, it probably be better to re-upload the image cause then I could get rid of the lower edge region displaying the "Wellcome Images" but I can not find the original source. It hasn't been referenced. I've tried looking for it manually, but I just seem to find it and it's frustrating. Anyways, can you please find the original source then link back here so I can give another attempt to fix the broken image.

By the way, I've also fixed the referencing again for the flowchart. Please follow the format when referencing.

--Eugene Chan 18:48, 30 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, Everyone should now fix their sections. Julia will post the list of changes that needs to be made (thx Julia)

  • I fixed the references for my sections and some others that occured throughout the page.
  • Put the PWS into the differential diagnosis section.
  • Relocated the hypopigment. and occular albinism into the symptoms section.
  • Replaced the symptoms table with bullet points, I think it looks way better this way.
  • Added the occurance numbers to the intro, but not the numbers for the diff. countrys, because europe is one time higher and another time lower than AUS- so it wouldn't make sense.

--Theodora Retzl 19:27, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer review

Fabulous work throughout the page. History seems to be a little long. Perhaps you can summarize it further. Also, add the reference for the images as you can only see the source. Since the Pathogenesis is quite long, have you considered addition of more images especially in the upper side of the section? Nice work on the signs and symptoms. But again, add the Reference. Not only the website  Diagnosis—amazing work and all but consider narrowing the space in some areas so it does not look empty and fix some of the unseen images. Some of the references need reformatting like 89, 1, 4, 5. Overall, good job --z3284061 11:53, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7

  • Introduction is good but needs an image
  • History section needs referencing
  • Epidemiology needs more information
  • Pathogenesis is good, maybe a little text heavy
  • Student images are good
  • More images needed to balance the page
  • Good glossary
  • Double referencing needs to be fixed

--z3292953 11:07, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Angelman Syndrome – Group 7

  • Introduction very succinct and well written. Maybe there could be a little more detail here though and the use of an image in this section would look nice aswell.
  • History section has no images also, and doesn’t seem to use much referencing at all. Is this information reliable?
  • Epidemiology covers the basic information, but I think the point was to go beyond basic and make it very detailed. This section could use some work and addition of image would be good also.
  • Aetiology is well written. Good use of table and image. Some formatting issues with image to make the spacing correct.
  • Pathogenisis is highly detailed, some formatting issues in terms of spacing but otherwise well researched and written. Maybe some dot points in this section would help break it up. Use of images is excellent, but still a very text heavy section.
  • Signs and Symptoms heading not formatted correctly. And I found the table in this section a little confusing, can the referencing be put down the bottom of the page with the rest?
  • Is the complications section complete? It looks much shorter than the rest, maybe it would do better as a subheading of sugns and symptoms if there isn’t more to include. An image of these complications could look good.
  • Images in the diagnosis heading has no description or detailed information as to what the images show.
  • Current and Future research section is well written, however I though that you could possibly give a couple of current research projects and give a little more detail on these. It is a good overview and gives a bit of information but I thought more could be written here,
  • Glossary looks great, but not quite complete I don’t think.

--Z3288196 10:45, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Angelman Syndrome (Group 7) Peer Review:

Introduction: Summarizes whole page which is good. An image in this section would be good to engage the reader from the beginning.

History: Could you perhaps merge the information all into the one table? Seems slightly repetitive. Referencing needs to be completed.

Epidemiology: Too succinct. Possibly elaborate a little bit more?

Aetiology: This section seems to be well done. Student-dawn image is impressive. Well done.

Pathogenesis: Very extensive information! A lot of research has gone into this section. Images are good, however the first image to appear in this section is too large and lacks a label to describe what the image is about. Otherwise, this section is well done.

Signs and Symptoms: This section is also well done. Good to see many references. Information is interesting and the picture is relevant. However, the image lacks a properly formatted reference and a student template.

Complications: This section seems too brief compared to the other sections.

Diagnosis: This section is extensive, however needs to be organized in a more easy to understand manner. It is slightly confusing when reading due to the subheadings. Also the flow diagram needs a label at the bottom and the student template as well as proper referencing.

Related Diseases: Is this section needed? If it is, elaborate further. It does not seem complete.

Treatment and Management: Needs an image, if possible, to break up the information. Good use of table to organize information. More references are needed. Why is there a reference below the table? Couldn’t this be placed within the reference list with the others?

Prognosis: Good information and many references which is good.

Genetic Counseling: Is this needed as a subheading on its own? Content is confusing and too brief.

Current and Future Research: This is a good idea. Possibly an image to break up the information as it seems like a slab of information at the moment.

Glossary: Very extensive well done. --z3290808 10:45, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7

Good info. But theres few pics especially at the top they could be used to grab the attention of the reader.

There are slabs of writing then a collection of pictures. Perhaps the pictures should be spread out because the text is very heavy at the moment.

Good intro but picture? Pathogenesis 1st picture is extremely large.

Good headings and subheadings

z3332178 =]

GROUP 7: Angelman Syndrome

  • Intro is very succinct and to the point, could use an image here to grab attention of the reader
  • History has been fairly well researched few minor adjustments to sentence structure could be made to make it flow better, an image could also help enhance this section
  • "However it was only when he stumbled upon an oil painting called ‘a Boy with a Puppet” while on a holiday in Italy he was able to connect the symptoms" -sentence could be restructured to flow better
  • timeline in well formatted in a table, however i feel that more could be added and "current" isn't a year, could you maybe include a year for when these four different genetic abnormalities for AS were confirmed and maybe include what these are
  • Epidemiology and Aetiology look like they could use some more info. In Aetiology, more info on the genes would be helpful, like what they're responsible for and their implications
  • Most of the first paragraph of Pathogenesis could be better placed in history section, image in this section is way too big and it's description could be better placed (more closely associated with it)
  • The legend for the graph in pathogenesis shouldn't really include the link to the source
  • Table in signs and symptoms is a bit confusing, doesn't really indicate where it starts and stops, no margins
  • diagnosis is very detailed and very informative, i feel like the images, while good, disrupt some of the text (too many gaps created) and so info doesn't flow well, maybe reformat them and make them smaller (maybe make the first one a thumb)


  • general formatting of some images needs to be fixed, some of them are too big, interfere with the flow of some section's text, some images need to properly be referenced

--z3331556 10:09, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7:

  • intro: doesn’t need that comma in the first sentence, ‘Angelman syndrome (AS) is a rare neurogenetic disorder, first described by Dr Harry Angelman in 1956.’ Taking it out would be a lot smoother. But otherwise great job.
  • History: I don’t think you need to write it down in that many words. Less words doesn’t necessarily mean a bad section. I think some parts, the timeline was sufficient. Or even place the timeline before and then go into detail for what happened in that year. I’d like to read a brief part, and then a detailed part if need be but not the other way round. Great section though.
  • epidem: could have more info.
  • etiology: great! Easy to understand
  • path: the first image was a little big, maybe shrink this so scrolling doesn’t need to be done. Cos you can click it out onto its actual size anyway.
  • signs: content was good. Maybe work on the flow of it. It was a little confusing to understand
  • complications: more info needed, seems unfinished. or tie it in somewhere else as a subheading?
  • diagnosis: one image was taken off, please fix this

--z3290558 09:59, 29 September 2011 (EST)

group 7 evaluation

  • Introduction is too brief. It would be good if you could introduce the other headings that you guys have in your page.

History is informative and the timeline is a good summary of the history. It could be improved by adding an image of Dr angelman or something relevant to the section, also it you could make the dates in the timeline stand out more.

  • I like the simplicity of the epidemiology. The use of an image would probably make this section better. Also if you could add a bit more statistics to this part, it would be more informative.
  • Aetiology is not informative enough. I think you need to further research this section and add a bit more information about the mutations, and the table doesn’t really make a lot of sense as well.
  • I really like the pathogenesis section. It is very informative and fully explains the disease process. The diagram that was used is very useful in understanding the disease process. Only criticism is that sometimes the paragraphs get out of hand and goes to verbose for the reader to understand. If you could elaborate further on the technical concepts it would help a lot.
  • Fix up the heading. The table is a bit confusing when you first look at it. Aside from these 2 the information I think covers the idea of the signs and symptoms of the disease.
  • I think the heading should be Diagnostic tests because the diagnosis is Angelman Syndrome. The flow diagram is good for this section and the information provided are all relevant. Just make sure to make the little headings bold and not italics, and not dot points as it makes it better.
  • Treatment is summarized perfectly . I just think that you should make the left column bold.
  • The genetic counseling section doesn’t make sense to me. I think you should at least have some description of this section and explain what it is for
  • The current and future research could be further improved by actually mentioning current research being done (article names), and a future direction reflection would probably be good as well.

--z3290841 10:25, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

Some places for improvement.

  • Double spacing of paragraphs looks awkward.
  • History section would benefit by placing the information into the timeline rather than paragraphs as it is a bit hard to follow.
  • In the epidemiology, aetiology and complications sections need some more content. Seems very minimal. The table in aetiology could be explained much better.
  • Seems to be too many sections with only a small amount of content. These could be merged as some headings fit under a broader heading. This would make the page seem more content filled and give it a better flow.
  • Glossary could be expanded.
  • References need to be fixed. There are many that are just a web address. Full citation is needed. Double ups need to be fixed.

--z3217043 09:26, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7 Peer Review

  • Well written introduction
  • Great structure of headings
  • An image in history would help make this look a bit more interesting however the use of a table is great
  • Epidemiology could be expanded
  • Pathogenesis looks really well researched and put together-well done
  • Not sure that the genetic counselling section adds anything to the page
  • Fantastic, extensive glossary
  • Referencing looks great
  • Overall, a well researched and structured project

--Fleur McGregor 09:19, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7

  • Great introduction, detailed enough to engage the reader and leads well into other sections which further detail the described topics.
  • History section needs references, but a good combination of text and the timeline table.
  • Epidemiology needs more detail if it can be found and added.
  • Aetiology is great, very clear and easy to understand.
  • Image under ‘Pathogenesis’ could be reformatted to suit the page better, because right now it is just huuuge, but it relates well to the text.
  • Table under ‘Signs and Symptomes’ needs some borders, I got really confused =/ A well referenced section though.
  • Each diagnostic method could be highlighted in bold or something, the bullet points don’t make them very noticeable. A legend could also be included under the image of the procedure for prenatal diagnosis of AS
  • Table under treatment and management could use some borders.

--z3331469 07:55, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7 Peer Review

• Over-all, good sub-heading structure and nice flow to the page. However, I feel the top half of the page is very image lacking (especially the top 3 sub-headings).

• Very good range of references, however you need to avoid the doubling up of references.

• The introduction is short and sweet! Very interesting and a good summary of the disease.

• The history is written well and the timeline is a nice summary which complements the text. An image here would really add to the project, if you are able to find one.

• Epidemiology is a good start, with good headings. However more detail is needed and an addition of a table/graph would really improve this section.

• Aetiology is good, clear and to the point. Nice table! Are you able to elaborate more on the different phenotypes?

• Pathogenesis is well written, however I feel that the first paragraph has too much history. I really like the explanation of UBE3A ubiquitylation, very clear and complimented by the student drawn image! Pathogenesis could also be improved by breaking it up into relevant headings.

• Your images are really good and helpful, however I think that images look better on the right hand side of the page.

• Signs and symptoms have good content, but I’m not sure about the use of the table here. Also, there are two references in this table, don’t forget to use a consistent referencing system throughout the page.

• Diagnosis has good content, but could be made tidier by highlighting the headings of the different diagnosis, placing all images to the right and reducing the size of the flow chart.

• Related diseases needs some more work, if you really want to include this sub-heading.

• Treatment and management is an informative section, however there is only 1 reference?

• To be honest, I don’t really understand the need for the genetic counselling sub-heading. It’s very similar to the table used in aetiology.

• Really good glossary!

--z3289829 02:45, 29 September 2011 (EST)

  • Intro: Needs a picture, a patient perhaps would be more engaging.
  • History: Contradictions in regards to the initial date of discovery in the introduction.
  • Epidemiology: Looks incomplete and rushed. Why the only places considered Denmark, Estonia, Sweden and WA? Surely Angelman’s exists in other places too.
  • Aetiology: The table is very difficult to follow. What’s UBE3A? What’s cytogenetics FISH? It either needs to be summarised into a neat paragraph or more detail needs to be added to explain what’s happening. Image needs more explanation and it’s also not referenced correctly.
  • Pathogenesis: Quite extensive! It’s very informative but a lot to take in, extremely word heavy. It would be best to summarise a few sections and use more subheadings and highlight the main words to make it more easy to understand. “UBE3A Ubiquitylation Pathway” image needs a lot more explanation to understand the pathway.
  • Signs and Symptoms: Very well done! Love the use of subheadings and reference to the images. You can quite easily use one of these photos in your intro to keep your readers interested.
  • Complications: Way too short (especially compared to pathogenesis section). Needs more work
  • Diagnosis: Needs better formatting. Subheadings, font change - its hard to follow.
  • Glossary: There’s a lot of terminology used in this page and not many have been defined. It would also help if you can link your words to the glossary.
  • References: Double referencing (common problem it seems).
  • Overall, great job but there’s a great difference between the quality of research in some sections as compared to others.

--z3290270 02:26, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • Pictures vs text vs tables are well balanced, but perhaps could use a picture earlier
  • "Incorrectly referred to as 'happy puppet' syndrome". Why is this incorrect? Do you mean "colloquially referred to as..."?
  • History has no references.
  • Epidemiology is rather poorly laid out. If that is all the information found, perhaps it should be grouped with another section?
  • Aetiology is succinct but informative. Perhaps the layout of this section could be modified to remove the blank space between the text and the table.
  • Pathogenesis is set out very well, with interesting/easily understood subheadings and a good balance between pictures and text; interesting placement on the page.
  • Signs and Symptoms is similarly well set out and well referenced, with a good balance between text and pictures. However, the table is a little bit confusing.
  • Complication section would be better inserted within another section.
  • Diagnosis has an image error, while another picture is not explained with a subtitle.
  • There is a random floating reference in Treatment and Management.
  • The glossary is rather comprehensive, explaining even some specific genetic terms.

--z3290689 01:50, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7: Angelman Syndrome

  • Overall, webpage looks well researched and evenly balanced between text and images.
  • Introduction: maybe a bit too concise. But I like the fact that it briefly touches on everything.
  • History: There are no references in this section. I like the table at the end, nice touch.
  • Epidemiology: information is there, but I’m too sure about the layout.
  • Pathogenesis: lots of information here + imagery. Consider making the images smaller and adding a caption.
  • Signs and symptoms: not sure about the table content, just seems a bit confusing. However rest of information is interesting and well referenced.
  • Complications: very short section. Perhaps it could be incorporated under another heading?
  • Diagnosis: very large image used. Don’t really like how it separates that section because the information following on seems disjointed.
  • Glossary: extensive. Great job

--z3332327 01:10, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer review:

  • Intro is short and doesn't have that hook factor to attract audience also a picture wouldn't go astray either.
  • history is good, but again a picture or a table should be used to break up such a massive chunk or writing.
  • as if there is not enough data for a larger epidemiology.
  • again aetiology is very short, genetics could be elaborated as this is a very important part of the project.
  • bold some of the subheadings to make it more easier to read in pathogenesis. apart from that it is great!
  • use subheadings for diagnosis and bold the dot points as well.
  • very little references for treatment, sure there is more references used.
  • overall very little photos used, i expected more to be achieved from the group by this stage, try to really work hard on it!

--Jasjit Walia 00:06, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review for Group 7

  • More of an attempt should be made to expand on the intro and make it more catchy for readers
  • The history section was interesting, but try to include more time points for the syndrome as it seems to take some leaps of time. Also it needs to be referenced.
  • Epidemiology seems to be too brief. Please expand on this section to give the true epidemiology of this condition around the world. Use of charts would be good
  • Aetiology seems ok.
  • There seems to be 4 random dot points found in the pathogenesis section. Please fix this up as it disrupts the flow of the section
  • Pathophysiology section has decent information. However, I think the genotype-phenotype correlations section which has some statistics should be included in the epidemiology section
  • I don’t understand why you placed the animal models section under Pathogenesis. I understand it contributes a little ti it but it seems not relevant to the total pathogenesis section.
  • Sigsn and symptoms contains good info. However, the table seems hard to read, maybe leave the table outlines so people can identify the regions of the table. Also the referencing found in the table shouldn’t be there but rather include in the referencing list.
  • The flow diagram in the diagnosis section should be rather in a thumb on the right rather than a full blown picture in the page. Well that’s my opinion, up to you if you want to fix it.
  • Some of the diagnostic tests could be explained how it works to help diagnose Angelmans syndrome
  • I think it would be better to merge the differential diagnosis information and the related diseases section. It would make it look better.
  • Some of the info under treatment and management section seems to be not referenced using the referencing system inbuilt into the wiki page. Please fix it as it would make it look better.
  • Have an introduction to the table found in the genetic counseling section.
  • There is repetitive referencing seen in the reference list. Please fix this according to what is expected when one article is used many times.
  • Page has lots of words, thus a bit more of pictures is needed to balance the text to picture ratio.

--Z3291317 23:51, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7

Introduction: Good but would be better with some pictures.

History: I think this section would be better if all the text was incorporated into the timeline instead of having the two separate sections.

Epidemiology: This section seems very incomplete.

Etiology: Again, this section seems incomplete. The genetics components of the disease need more detailed explaining because they are hard to understand.

Pathogenesis: This section seems quite complicated and disjointed. One of the pictures is very large. It would be better if it was a bit smaller and had a caption explaining it.

Signs and symptoms: I think it would look better if the table was put into sentences and the signs and symptoms were put into the table instead.

Complications: This section is very brief and seems quite complicated. Terms like halpingoinsuffiency need further explaining.

Diagnosis: Good. The table is great. Would look better if it was centred and had a caption to go with it.

Treatment: I think this section needs to be more detailed.

Current research: Would look better with more pictures.--z3291324 23:24, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7:

•Good, concise introduction. Maybe add a picture if possible, just to grab the attention of the reader

•The history section does not seem to have many references for the amount of information included here. Nice timeline, easy to read and up to date

•Some of the sections are quite long, and the use of further subheadings within each section would help to break up the text and make it easier to read

•A couple of the images are quite large and disrupt the formatting and overall flow of the page. However, this is just a simple formatting problem and the images used are interesting and relate well to the information

•Maybe incorporate some of the external links into the relevant sections throughout the page

•Overall, the page seems well researched and by fixing up some of the formatting and subheading structure then the page will flow better overall and will be easier to read.

--z3332183 21:31, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7

*The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. Main sections are there. Epidemiology needs more content.

*The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. Alot of content but not broken up enough. Use subheadings if possible - allows easy searching for specific content.

*Content is correctly cited and referenced. File:UBE3A Ubiquitylation Pathway.png, File:Extent of microcephaly in 20 AS patients with deletion and without deletion.png, File:Normal and AS mice performance on the Rotarod apparatus.jpg, File:Fluorescence in situ Hybridisation (FISH) study showing the critical region of Angelman Syndrome on chromosome 15.jpg and File:Role of UBE3A in dendritic spine neuronal synapses.png needs to be referenced correctly.

*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 student drawn image - adequate explaination.

*Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. Decent research has gone into this.

*Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. Alot of information on genes, but maybe relate it back to development of individual? (eg: what does 'UBE3A ubiquitylation' mean for the individual?)

*Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. development follows guidelines, can be improved by making some changes.

--z3329495 21:22, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Assessment Group 7-Angelman Syndrome

  • An image in 'Introduction' or 'History', will make the beginning of the page more lucrative
  • The 'History' is too verbose, you can make better use of the time line by expanding on it rather than keeping a large amount of text.
  • The timeline would look better as bullet points and the years bolded, just a lot easier to follow
  • 'Aetiology' has a large gap. The image needs to be resized to make the section look complete
  • 'Epidemiology' needs a bit more illaboration, maybe you could touch on why there is a difference in the disease occurrence in different regions. The image also has insufficient description of what it is showing.
  • Pathogenesis also has numerous gaps, there is a lot of information which is great however hard to follow. Needs rationalization in the formatting.
  • There are some formatting issues in 'Signs and Symptoms', it starts in the middle of the page, it looks like it is part of pathophysiology.
  • The table under signs and symptoms don't have defined borders, can you consider a more defined structure of the table?
  • The flowchart in 'Diagnosis', is a little too large, makes the page look out of balance
  • Are you going to discuss the Genetic Counselling bit a little more? I am not sure what the table is trying to convey
  • There are a lot of references and the glossary also looks comprehensive

--Tahmina Lata 18:59, 28 September 2011 (EST) Group 7 Angelman Syndrome

  • Intro – a pic of a typical sufferer would be great
  • History – you have a different date to the intro for the first time it was described as a disease. Is it 1964 or 1965? Table is good, but I think the word ‘Notes’ for the 2nd column is funny, surely you can think of a better word like, ‘Progress of disease’ or something?
  • Epidemiology section seems incomplete, as does Aetiology
  • Aetiology – needs another column for what the effects of each class of mutation has on the person, and maybe a brief explanation of what each mechanism means?
  • Pathogenesis – picture of UB3EA is too big. I would re-write this section, as although the info is here, it is too wordy. Split big sentences into 2 or 3, it will make it easier to read. Don’t use colloquial language, this is a science project! Some concepts need to be explained more, e.g. E6-AP ubiquitin ligase. What is this, what does it do, why is it important etc, AMPA receptors, UBE3A ubiquitylation...
  • Ubiquitylation – need to explain what this is, it is not even in the glossary. I have no idea!!
  • Fix formatting between pathogenesis and signs and symptoms
  • Complications, related disease, treatment and management, prognosis, genetic counselling sections are incomplete, but I’m sure everyone else has said that.
  • Diagnosis – need to have consistent formatting between the diff techniques, i.e. are they bold, italic? First pic is too big, and one is broken.
  • Current and future research – some explanations seem like they should be earlier in the page, e.g. “Although everyone is born with two copies of the gene UBE3A, one maternal and one paternal copy, it is only the maternal UBE3A that is used in the brain. Most AS patients have a genetic mutation on the maternal chromosome 15 that results in dysfunctional UBE3A.[89] “ if this has already been said earlier (and I just missed it), then you don’t need to repeat it. Some pages have short summaries of good, recent papers on research, this looks good so maybe you guys could do this too?
  • Glossary – some terms are missing, like ketogenic diet. Just define ANY technical term, I think its better to have more than assume people know what something means when they don’t.
  • External links – put these in their respective places in the page, need a short sentence on what each is about
  • References – some are repeated one after another, there is a way to condense it so its like 78.1, 78.2, 78.3 etc.
  • Good work overall, there is thorough research but some sections are still lacking.

--z3332824 18:06, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7: Peer Assessment

  • The introduction is brief and informative and makes me want to read the rest.
  • May be you can add an image in the introduction or history or both to make it even more engaging
  • You history section is nicely to ready and captures my interest.
  • While it is good to come straight to the point, your epidemiology section is really short
  • The pathogenesis section is very informative and very good especially for people who are really looking to understand the disorder. May be a few subheadings on the way, just to make this text heavy section a little lighter.
  • Diagnostic techniques would be nice in a table
  • You still got some "double referencing", we have the same problem;)
  • You glossary in comparison to most other projects seams to be relatively complex. Great
  • The student images are well done!
  • You have got a lot of information and I find it quite interesting. It seems a little text heavy overall. --z3279511 17:12, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7 Peer Review

  • Introduction is pretty short, and there is no image in the intro nor the history section. It makes it difficult to read. However, the information is quite adequate; perhaps mention the incidence in the introduction?
  • History section is well presented, perhaps have an image or two around here. It'll help out :)
  • Epidemiology section seems to just have the figures copied and pasted from these two presented papers. Can you explain the reasons as to why the current population is unknown? Surely there will be papers presented on these findings? Are there contributing factors to epidemiology and incidence; for example, why is the incidence so much higher in Denmark and Sweden; and are two countries directly comparable to Western Australia, as opposed to the whole of Australia? There seems to be almost no thought placed in this section.
  • Aetiology is sketchy, but will do. Is there more that can be said under this section?
  • Pathogenesis section is well described and many of the terms are present in the glossary. There is a nice balance of diagrams and test images, and good referencing throughout these sections. Once again, a pet hate is the presence of the images on the left hand side of the page which breaks up the margin that is traced by the eye when reading the page, making it unnecessarily difficult to read the information. Also make sure that there is enough space left at the bottom of your section so that the signs and symptoms section isn't axed by the image.
  • Signs and Symptoms is well described, and the use of the images also makes things much easier to observe. The subsections make it easier to observe as well. There are a few typos here and there; re-read your project and I'm sure you'll find them ;) Perhaps consider making complications an extension of the signs and symptoms section; it is too short to be a section by itself.
  • Diagnosis is well presented - try using bold text for headings as it's simply easier to read. Once again, left-aligned images are a pet hate. Consider the related diseases section as a sub-section of diagnosis.
  • Treatment and Management: Once again, absorb the next two sections and make them subsections. The information becomes a bit sketchy once we reach this stage of the project again.
  • The current and future research would do well to link to some articles that have been published quite recently.
  • Glossary has a nice layout and there are still some small issues in the referencing section that need to be addressed.
  • Overall the project starts and finishes quite sketchily, but the detail in the middle of the project is impressive. Try to balance the entire project and ensure that each section has an even weighting. There is also a distinct lack of images in sections other than the pathogenesis section, and more information (let alone detail) needs to be added many sections. Images! Keep at it guys! :)

--Leonard Tiong 11:13, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7

  • Firstly, you don’t have a very good image/text ratio
  • Introduction would grab my attention a little more with an image
  • Try combining the text that you have for history in the timeline
  • Epidemiology is not very extensive. You need to give more of a worldwide overview- also try and find information regarding Australia as a whole rather than just WA
  • Obviously a lot of research has been put into pathogenesis- although there is a lot of information presented at once, try to break this up using bullet points etc
  • Why have you included ‘Adapted from Smith JC, et al. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet 2003;40:87-95 Adapted from Williams CA, et al Angelman syndrome: consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Med Genet 1995;56:237–8 ‘ in the text? This should be in your references
  • Differential diagnosis and related diseases should be combined
  • Genetic counselling has not been explained so makes little sense
  • Current and future research should have subheadings

Comments on Group Project 7


  • The history section was very well done. The block of text above the timeline provided just enough information and captured my interest. The timeline provided adequate summary of the major milestones in research of Angelman Syndrome.
  • The glossary section seems decent.
  • The student images are really good, especially the mechanism illustrations.


  • Lack of use of subheadings. More subheadings can be used to break some of the sections up. It would not look so overwhelming then.
  • Format of the overall page is not the best as it can be.
  • There is some duplication in references.

Specific corrections:

  • Just curious, why are males more predisposed to early developmental delay?
  • It would be good to make the format of the stats under epidemiology consistent. Either fraction or ratio (I prefer ratio :D).
  • Maybe for some of the tables, it will look better with an outline border so it is easier to see when the text in the table ends and when text in paragraphs starts.
  • Use more subheadings e.g. Under Signs & Symptoms, the subheadings would be “Behavioural Characteristics”, “Communication Skills”, “Clinical & External Characteristics”, etc.
  • Section under genetic counselling should come with an explanation or a paragraph of text. It will be good to elaborate further than just a table.

--Z3389806 05:53, 27 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7 assessment

  • Introduction well established and clear though image can’t hurt
  • History of angelmans would be lighten up with the image of the founder
  • Epidemiology could be expanded a little more and even a map would make this section lively
  • Aetiology description of the classes could have a paragraph explaining the table relating to the cause of angelmans
  • Pathogenesis was a bit confusing with mostly genetic terms that were not found in the glossary. Otherwise structure is proper and well integrated with images
  • Signs and symptoms table is confusing were addition of dot points in the table would be helpful
  • Complications heading seems rather odd to be placed separately form the signs and symptoms, would be better added as a subheading.
  • Diagnosis could introduce the diagnosis types in small paragraph, type are clearly expanded though image of the child could be made smaller
  • Related diseases would be better in the symptoms with the complications as another sub heading instead of small niece headings
  • Genetic council would be suited under the prognosis as chances of risks
  • Research should be sub divided in to current and future research
  • Referencing needs to remove repeats and link needs to be manually referenced. Glossary needs the addition of some genetic terms and method of indicating the glossary words to the web page.

z3332250 23:55, 26 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7 Critique

  1. • Introduction is good
  2. • History is really good. I like how you explain your table and introduce it
  3. • Epidemiology is too short. More statistics need to be included
  4. • Aetiology is ok
  5. • Pathogenesis is complicated. Maybe explain what the genes are and their function
  6. • Pathophysiology has the same problems as pathogenesis
  7. • The remaining sections are done pretty well. I wouldn’t really change anything
  8. • Great use of images throughout the project

--Robert Klein 08:54, 25 September 2011 (EST)

Angelman Syndrome

  • You need to add an image in 'Introduction' or 'History', something to get the reader interested
  • You kind of repeat yourself in 'History'. Try putting more information into the timeline, as opposed to the text.
  • Epidemiology' looks a bit bare, is there a graph you can add or something? Also a bit more information can't hurt
  • Pathogenesis is HUGE, looks like you've put a lot of work into it. But, it needs to be broken up a bit. Also, shrink that first image down, it's a bit out of place. Maybe try to use proper subheadings to break it up, not just bold. Are you able to make a table out of 'Animal Models'? Ie type (mice), advantages, disadvantages, diagram (if present).
  • In 'Signs and Symptoms', you don't need the "Adapted from" you can just reference that. Or at least move it out of the table. I got confused and thought they were meant to be some of the symptoms
  • But you've got some good information in the rest of the section, nicely arranged with the images
  • Try shrinking the flow chart in 'Diagnosis', also reference it. It you made it yourself, say so
  • Nice table for 'Treatments'
  • Can you give a bit of an introduction to the table in 'Genetic Counselling', don't just jump straight into it
  • Make sure you reference that first paragraph in 'Current Research', you can't just make statements without justifying them with articles
  • Quite a good project, just need some more images and a bit of formatting

Group 7-

  • Very text heavy!
  • The introduction would benefit from an image
  • You can probably put all of the history into the table. Having text then summarised in a table is a bit redundant
  • Epidemiology is a little bland sorry. Table? Graph? Image? There is also not that much information there. And only including western Australia? I think you could find data for Australia as a whole
  • There is A LOT of text in pathogenesis. It is good but could be improved by breaking it up a bit. Maybe bullet points?
  • Animal models should be a new subheading
  • ‘pathophysiology’ subheading is not needed. The information in it could be included in pathogenesis

‘Adapted from Smith JC, et al. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet 2003;40:87-95 Adapted from Williams CA, et al Angelman syndrome: consensus for diagnostic criteria. J Med Genet 1995;56:237–8’ doesn’t need to be here. Just reference it normally. If this is your student drawn image I’m not sure it is enough. Making a table isn’t an “image”.

  • Other than that I like the signs and symptoms section. Although I believe that the table is a little out of place
  • Diagnosis section could be better formatted
  • Differential diagnosis and related diseases would work well together under one subheading
  • Referencing such as under the table in treatment is wrong. It isn’t done like this. You format it like everything else you reference. There is no place for the actual reference in the text. There should be a link for the reference in the reference section
  • What is the genetic counselling section? It makes no sense and needs to be explained.
  • Your project has obviously made progress but you need to look over it and make sure that things are formatted so that they are easily accessed, referenced properly and everything is in the right order.

Group 7

  • Good use of headings, maybe you could add sub headings into beak up the text and make the page easy to follow.
  • Intro section- maybe you could dot point the clinical features to make it easier to read.
  • Some of your intro and history dates dont correlate but this might be a typing mistake? 1956 and 1965??
  • Nice use of time line.
  • The epidemiology looks a little bare. Is there anymore info that could be added.
  • In the aetiology table make sure all your stats are referenced.
  • UBE3A Ubiquitylation Pathway picture is extremely large, maybe you could resize this.
  • I like the addition of animal models. With an amazing picture!
  • Sings and symptoms section is very well put together structurally- good use of subheadings, pictures and tables.
  • Are there anymore complication you could add for AS?
  • Maybe you could tabulate your diagnosis section. I like the flow chart!
  • Could have a common heading Related syndromes and differential diagnosis then use subheadings to split them up.
  • Genetic Counselling unsure of what this section is and what the table relates to?
  • I like that you colour scheme/tables are continuous through out the page.
  • Just make sure you reference list isn't doubled for some references.
  • make sure all acronyms are added to the glossary.
  • Nice student illustrations.

Group 7 Assessment

  • History section has almost no referencing at all. The information here definitely needs to be referenced. Pictures would also be helpful here.
  • There is not nearly enough information in the Epidemiology section… This definitely needs some major work done on it. More information and pictures are needed.
  • The student drawing for Chromosome 15 looks good, but where did you get this information from? Surely there’s a source you found the information from as to how to draw this figure. Shouldn’t you include that as well?
  • The Aetiology section could also use more work as far as amount of information goes. Think about what else is important that you could add to this part. Also, more of the information in the chart should be cited, unless the whole chart is cited from one article, which should be shown.
  • GREAT information given in the pathogenesis and Pathophysiology sections. Very well organized with superb supporting pictures and diagrams.
  • The signs and symptoms chart seems a bit confusing… maybe because it’s too close to the information given below it, so they seem to run together. It would be helpful to space this out more. Also, not all the information given in the chart is referenced…
  • Angelman Syndrome jpg needs correct referencing and also a descriptive sentence summarizing the information.
  • Postnatal diagnosis needs referencing as well.
  • The glossary would look more appealing if it used bullet points.
  • It would be a good idea also to have the glossary terms linked with the words in the wiki page, so that the reader can easily get access to the word in the glossary.
  • Some of the references are repetitive. Make sure to fix this so they all link to a single reference instead of numerous ones of the same resource.
  • Overall some sections of this wiki are rather good and near completion, but others need some major work still. Once the changes are made I'm sure it'll be a great page!

--Z3391078 16:02, 27 September 2011 (EST)

  • Introduction: brief and to the point.
  • History: Very well explained, but references have been forgotten? Also, you mention two dates in the summary table, 1980 & 1982, that you don't seem to explain previously.
  • Epidemiology: Looks a little bit bare. If there simply is not much information about it, I wouldn't split it in three sections with each only containing a sentence, but rather write one short paragraph.
  • Aetiology: I assume the UBE3A gene lies within the 15q11.2-q13 region? You might want to specify that. Also, some terms should be linked to the glossary.
  • Pathogenesis: Watch out with your terminology - you say "its function is vague" - its function most likely isn't vague, but it is only vaguely known. Subtle, but important difference. Why do you mention LTP? Is LTP affected in AS? Otherwise, impressive detail in the mechanisms, well explained.

Not quite sure it makes sense to have the "animal models" subheading under pathogenesis. Maybe have a separate section, entitled, animal models used in the study of AS? I'd also suggest having pathophysiology as a brief, but separate section from pathogenesis, and not have it as a subsection.

  • Signs and Symptoms: Not quite sure what the table is for? Having a table combined with text with subheadings seems a bit odd. The text is well explained. (Just correct obesity, not obeseness.)
  • Complications: A bit brief and out of the blue. How does it link in with the rest? Maybe include in under another section instead of have it as its own.
  • Diagnosis: Prenatal diagnosis looks good, very detailed. Just watch out with the chorionic villus sampling, not chronic villus sampling ;)

Postnatal: Revise your first sentence, doesn't quite make sense. Also, it seems a bit brief, maybe add a bit more detail? Differential Looks fine.

  • Related Diseases: Might make sense to combine this with differential diagnosis? Also, considering pretty much exactly the same region is affected in PWS as in AS, you might want to explain more how this still leads to two separate syndromes.
  • Treatment & Management: Needs a bit more detail.
  • Prognosis: The information provided seems a bit random, thus needs a bit more explanations and how it relates to everything else.
  • Genetic counseling: No explanations provided, simple table. How are people supposed to understand this?
  • Current and Future Research: Fine.
  • Glossary: (Your definition of an allele is not quite right.) Otherwise looks good, though some more terms need explanations.
  • References: The links probably need fixing, and some papers appear several times in the list.

Peer Assessment: Group Project 7

  • The history section is interesting and accessible but has very little referencing which detracts from its reliability.
  • In the epidemiology section, a small table could be inserted for the demographic to make it easier to read.
  • The aetiology section is clear and well balanced.
  • The section on pathogenesis is really detailed and well written.
  • Maybe you could include more information on how the different diagnostic techniques are conducted.
  • The picture in the diagnosis section needs to be fixed so that it is displayed properly. Also the information with the pictures you uploaded in the diagnosis section need to include {{Template:2011 Student Image}}.
  • In the glossary writing "A" above the group of A words and so on and so forth for the rest of it, would make it easier for the reader to quickly find the desired word.
  • Some of the references are duplicated. They can instead be linked together using the 'multiple instances on a page' editing guidelines:
  • Overall this group project is very thorough, giving good detail and adding appropriate additional sections which add to the clarity of the page and assist the reader in understanding more e.g. the external links, related diseases and complications.

--z3217345 09:39, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Peer Review

  • could not understand the pathogenesis of the disease that well
  • was difficult to understand maybe because of the use of the technical wordings

--z3060621 21:44, 28 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7:

  • Introduction may be a little short but I think it’s to the point. It does need some sort of a visual though, especially because the next two sections are also lacking images.
  • History is very interesting. I like how you have incorporated a table to summarize the text. A portrait of Harry Angelman or the oil painting of “a Boy with a Puppet” would fit nicely here.
  • Epidemiology needs more content.
  • Etiology also needs more content or at least elaboration on what content is already there. I believe that the 4 major genetic mechanisms aren’t explained well at all. The student drawn image is really good though.
  • Pathogenesis section is very good, although it is a lot to take on board it has been complimented very well by the addition of very clear student drawn images. The placement of the images needs to be reconsidered, especially since it disrupts the signs and symptoms heading.
  • Signs and symptoms; the table lets this section down, I don’t quite understand the headings of the table and where the content in the table ends because it merges with the reference. Maybe use dot points or add a second colour, add outlines and bold the headings? The rest of this section is done really well with very interesting text balanced well with the images. Just make sure to re-read this section as there was a spelling mistake noticed in the last line “Whit age, patients gain...”
  • Complication: if there aren’t any other complications I would suggest maybe moving this section to fit under signs and symptoms? It is interesting and worth keeping but it’s too short to be on its own.
  • Diagnosis: the formatting of this section needs tweaking to make it easier to read. I understand that the first image relates to prenatal diagnosis but the terms within the flow chart aren’t explained yet so it’s hard to follow. If you align this image to the left of the text and include a title for the image “Flow chart summarizing prenatal diagnosis of Angelman’s Syndrome” than this could solve this. This image also needs a proper citation. The second image is broken and the third would be better placed on the left as well.
  • Related diseases is too short, either add to it or merge it into another section (it could fit under prognosis if you create the right segue-way).
  • Treatment and management is fine, maybe bold the headings of the table.
  • Prognosis is ok, maybe a little short.
  • Genetic counselling is again too short and doesn’t really make sense. You need to explain the table first and connect it to genetic counselling. You shouldn’t repeat information either.
  • Current and future research is fine.

--z3290815 08:53, 29 September 2011 (EST)

HELP. I made a flow chart for prenatal diagnosis but it is saved as pdf file. Does anyone know if I can upload a pdf file as an image? I'm too scared to do it in case it mucks up something. --N Fernando 21:51, 18 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I've deleted the incidence and gender section from the introduction, caus it is outlayed in the epidemiology section anyway, and we would have had different statements.--Theodora Retzl 19:27, 18 September 2011 (EST)

Hey. I can't find the original article written by H, Angelman but I found a review on that original article published in 2008. It has the same title as the original angelman article. Here's the link: Can I use this? It's more of a commentary of the original paper than a review. --N Fernando 11:03, 18 September 2011 (EST)

Group 7

  • The introduction is very brief but it is too the point, maybe add a picture to catch the attention of readers.
  • The history had good information but it is not referenced AT ALL. However disregarding the fact that there are no references, the timeline is nice and simple and most importantly easy to understand.
  • The epidemiology is short and brief, maybe add a graph to add more information and to show the pattern of the disease. It is nicely referenced
  • Aetiology is brief and simple, the image is sized too long thus creating a big gap of space on the page. Either resize the image or fill the space with more information.
  • The pathogenesis is quite long and the big image does not help it making the section look more smaller. Maybe cut down and simplify the information.
  • Some of the layout needs to be fixed such as the format between the pathogenesis and signs and symptoms.
  • Some of the referencing is repeated (double referencing)

--z3330313 00:23, 29 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, maybe from now and til peer assessment day, we could work on the glossary? It's really hard to find a suitable image for intro and history. Nimeshi, have you managed to find the original article of Dr Harry's? We should probably ask Dr Hill first if getting a snapshot of the article isn't violating the copyright of the article. --Sang Lee 23:17, 17 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys, I know the history section is lengthy, don't worry I will shorten it. Julia, is this what you meant? I used information from both the sources. --N Fernando 12:47, 12 September 2011 (EST)

Also, do you guys reckon we should put an image of Harry Angelman in the history section? --N Fernando 22:07, 11 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, Julia, Yes I'll look through the articles and fix up the diagnosis part. --N Fernando 20:22, 11 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, Julia, thx for the link. I put up some contant to my section and shifted the AS- PWS image there. I have also added some information to the pheno-genotyp correlation part, and the glossary. It would probably be good to focus on getting the page content we have so far and the sub- headings in order and work on what we have so far, rather than to add new content. Maybe delete the epidemiology section, as there is not enough specific information available that would make senece there (and is in the introduction anyway), what do you think? --Theodora Retzl 19:49, 11 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, Nimeshi, , , its good for history (like about Ellen Magenis, etc). Maybe we could have a paragraph giving a brief history then a timeline? --Sang Lee 17:28, 10 September 2011 (EST)

Forgot something, Nimeshi, do you think you could take the liberty of breaking down the diagnosis into pre and postnatal, just cos I remember reading about diagnosis and lots of papers have broken them down like so. I also think it won't hurt to have a picture of EEG or graph of AS patients, showing pheno-geno correlations, etc. I also think it'd be good to have more text accompanying the table for Treatment and Management, I knoe there's no treatment as such for AS, so maybe we should write that? Thanks --Sang Lee 14:06, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, I've added some more info to my section, but need to reupload the image cos I've made a spelling mistake, what do you guys think? Please feel free to make suggestions to refine the image. Also, Theodora, do you think the image of the PWS and AS patients would be better positioned in the signs and symptoms section instead of the intro? I think the intro image could be more general, like a photo of Dr Angelman,etc.. Also, is PWS one of the differential diagnoses of AS? I don't think I put it up there with the other diseases, if so, could the person who added it in also put in the reference for that? This is for Theodora and Nimeshi, PMID 12566516, I think we should lay out the symptoms table like they did here and have a spider diagram style for diagnosis. Just remember to acknowledge them by saying 'Adapted from...', at the bottom of table, etc. Thanks --Sang Lee 13:46, 8 September 2011 (EST)

Just posted up the pictures. If you're not satisfied about the chromosome 15 pic, just let me know and I can change it up for you.

--Eugene Chan 12:06, 3 September 2011 (EST)

Hey guys just a quick note, we should refrain from using the words "mental retardation" as this could be deemed offensive. Use "intellectual disability" as that is a more common term now used in Australia. Also use "learning difficulty" or "developmental delay". We should also encourage the use of person-first language e.g., "a child with an intellectual disability" rather than "intellectually disabled child". This promotes the idea that a person comes before their disability.

Sorry to be very specific here, but if this is going to be a public-access website we should use the appropriate terminology.

Thanks --Eugene Chan 10:41, 3 September 2011 (EST)

Yeah, sure thing. Nimeshi,I've put your timeline into a table, I've given up on trying to do a graphical timeline.

  • PMID 12566516, I found this to be really good for Clinical features of AS (Theodora), I really liked the table formatting. It's relevant for Differential diagnosis, genetic counselling and phenotype/genotype correlation. It's also got a section on Management as well for Eugene.
  • PMID 20445456, for signs and symptoms, geno/pheno correlation, diagnostic testing methods+prenatal diagnosis, treatment and management
  • PMID 15668046, genetic diagnostic testing and clinical features (again in a table format according to frequency)

Also, I think we could also add Phenotype/genotype correlation and Animal models as subsections, what do you guys think? --Sang Lee 23:12, 1 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, I think it makes more sense to compare the symptoms in adults and children in a table, rather than to draw a timeline. There are no research articles really focusing on the symptoms in every age of the patients, and the changes from year to year.--Theodora Retzl 21:13, 1 September 2011 (EST)

Hey, I've just typed in some of the information I've collected so far. I'll definitely be writing a lot more on aetiology and pathogenesis, but I thought it won't hurt to contribute to other subsections as well. I'll add the references and glossary words bit later today. Please feel free to make

Peer Assessments

  • Your pathogenesis section was good, it was thorough and went into significant depth. The use of animal models and the support of recent studies was also a positive aspect
  • The photo of the ub pathway should be smaller or be placed as a thumb nail as it isn’t something that directly contributes to your defect
  • It is a shame that there is such a large gap in your Aetiology section, but i do realise that this is slightly out of your control due to wiki formatting issues.
  • I personally found the signs and symptoms section to be slightly confusing in format. Perhaps placing this info into a table would make it more concise.
  • Treatment and management section had lots of detail and highlighted a few different methods which gave a good insight of the current technologies and strategies out there in the market.

--z3332629 15:27, 22 September 2011 (EST)