Difference between revisions of "Talk:2011 Group Project 7"

From Embryology
Line 153: Line 153:
 
*'''Glossary''': (Your definition of an allele is not quite right.) Otherwise looks good, though some more terms need explanations.
 
*'''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.
 
*'''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 <nowiki>{{Template:2011 Student Image}}</nowiki>.
 +
*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: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=References#Multiple_Instances_on_Page.
 +
*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.
 +
--[[User:Z3217345|z3217345]] 09:39, 28 September 2011 (EST)
  
  

Revision as of 10:39, 28 September 2011

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

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 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

Strengths:

  • 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.

Weaknesses:

  • 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: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=References#Multiple_Instances_on_Page.
  • 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)



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: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03035.x/pdf 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)


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, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.wwwproxy0.library.unsw.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ajmg.c.30278/pdf , http://www.angelman.org/stay-informed/facts-about-angelman-syndrome---7th-edition/harry-angelman-and-the-history-of-as/ , 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)