Difference between revisions of "Talk:2012 Group Project 5"

From Embryology
(Group evaluation)
(Images)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Assessment==
 +
===Criteria===
 +
 +
# The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
 +
# The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
 +
# Content is correctly cited and referenced.
 +
# 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.
 +
# Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
 +
# Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
 +
# 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.
 +
# Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
 +
# 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.
 +
# Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
 +
 +
* I understand that given you are covering "abnormal" and there was another project on "vision" you needed to cover your specific topic in some depth.
 +
* Clearly structured project layout.
 +
* Not a good balance between figures/text.
 +
* Tables were incorporated well.
 +
* I was also hoping to see more on retina abnormalities.
 +
 +
 +
===Student Edits===
 +
{|
 +
| Student Number
 +
| 3331330
 +
| 3220343
 +
| 3374173
 +
|-
 +
| Edits
 +
| 196
 +
| 112
 +
| 60
 +
|}
 +
 +
===Images===
 +
<gallery>
 +
 +
 +
Image:Comparison_of_phenotypes_with_PAX6_gene_mutation_in_different_animals.png|
 +
 +
File:Stage14 sem2cl.jpg|Optic placode visible at stage 14 embryo
 +
 +
Image:Optic_cup_at_carnegie_stage_17_.jpg‎|Optic Cup at Carnegie Stage 17
 +
 +
Image:Images_of_congenital_hereditary_cataracts_due_to_mutations_of_crystallin_genes.png|Images of congenital hereditary cataracts from mutations of crystallin genes
 +
 +
Image:Appearance_of_cornea_due_to_CHED.png|t|Appearance of cornea due to Corneal hereditary endothelial dystrophy.
 +
 +
Image:Retinal_Disc_to_form_Optic_Cup_at_Carnegie_stage_14.jpg|Retinal Disc forming the Optic Cup
 +
 +
Image:Albino_fundus.jpg‎|Comparison between fundus in Albinism and Normal eye
 +
 +
File:LCA patient.jpg|Photograph of patient IV:3 showing bilateral cataracts (radial spoke-shaped) and keratoconus.
 +
 +
File:LCA fundus and cataracts.jpg|A: Ectatic white cornea. B: Fundus photograph of the same patient at six months. Note the normal fundus features.
 +
 +
Image:Leber Congential Amaurosis Fundus.jpg|Fundus of LCA patient with RPE65 mutation
 +
 +
Image:Clinical_appearance_of_anophthalmia_and_microphthalmia.png‎|Clinical appearance of anophthalmia and microphthalmia (upper picture: anophthalmia, lower picture:microphthalmia)
 +
 +
Image:Unilateral_microphthalmia_patient_with_delection_of_SOX2_gene.png|A patient with microphthalmia with deletion of SOX2 gene
 +
 +
Image:Comparison_of_phenotypes_with_PAX6_gene_mutation_in_different_animals.png|Comparison of phenotypes between normal and PAX6 mutant across different animals
 +
 +
File:FASface.jpg|Facial Appearance of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
 +
 +
</gallery>
 +
 +
 
{{2012GroupDiscussion}}
 
{{2012GroupDiscussion}}
  

Latest revision as of 15:33, 29 November 2012

Assessment

Criteria

  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.
  • I understand that given you are covering "abnormal" and there was another project on "vision" you needed to cover your specific topic in some depth.
  • Clearly structured project layout.
  • Not a good balance between figures/text.
  • Tables were incorporated well.
  • I was also hoping to see more on retina abnormalities.


Student Edits

Student Number 3331330 3220343 3374173
Edits 196 112 60

Images


From the Course Coordinator

2012 Projects: Vision | Somatosensory | Taste | Olfaction | Abnormal Vision | Hearing


--Mark Hill 09:58, 18 September 2012 (EST) This is a recent review on vision. http://jcb.rupress.org/content/190/6/953.full JCB content allows reuse.

http://www.jove.com/video/3730/isolation-and-culture-of-human-fungiform-taste-papillae-cells

--Mark Hill 08:17, 16 August 2012 (EST) This small section at the top of your discussion page allows me to easily distribute information to all students looking at the group discussion page.

Please do not delete, edit or move the template {{Template:2012GroupDiscussion}} from the top of this page.

1. Search:

2. History

  • Embryology History Explore the rich history of sensory research. In particular look through the available images that may complement the text. Any of this material can be used, you should cite the original paper or textbook. Gray | 1921 Bailey and Miller

Group evaluation

From the outset the page presents as well structured, particularly the introduction which provides the reader with a clear understanding of the purpose and content of the page. The following content is detailed and well researched with equal emphasis place upon each section. It appears that the page was contributed to equally by each member.

The image comparing the fundus between albinism and a normal eye is too small. The formatting is easily fixed by including the pixel size in the image insert directory. To find out how to do this refer to the wiki reference card we were given, or online. One minor structuring problem comes from the “ocular manifestations” sections. When it says “Major ocular disorders can be split into two separate sections based on the way in which they originated,” please list the two separate classifications immediately in bullet form. i.e.

  • Genetic
  • Environmental

By the time the section about the environmental origins arises, I forgot what it was referring back to and thus I had to scroll back up to deduce it was the second part of the ocular manifestations heading. Apart from this there are no other major faults of the project. All images are cited and copyright information clearly recognisable.


Your introduction is rather succinct which I like but I would encourage you to put references in this section. I would also suggest that you split it into 2 paragraphs to make it easier to read. Perhaps maybe you could put a photo of a normal eye in this section to show what it should look like, and then throughout the paper as you discuss the abnormal developments, you it could give the reader a better understanding as to how exactly this has altered the eye using the comparison.

The Normal eye development section is good as it provides a way for the reader to compare the differences in progression when referring to the different abnormalities listed below. However I would possibly suggest this to be put in a table, with perhaps a sentence at the top saying something along the lines of in order to fully comprehend abnormal development, an understanding of normal eye development is important - that way the reader can understand why you put this section in. I would also suggest a picture here.

The abnormal lens development section is clearly very well researched with a wide range of references. I like how you have separated the development in to the different sections of the eye as this can give a more thorough insight into these abnormalities. I think this section has been well written, and the only suggestion I would have would be in regards to the photo presented. Perhaps include some arrows to point at the sections you’re talking about and discuss what the nuclear area of the lens is?

The anormal corneal development and the abnormal retinal development are very descriptive and well referenced. I would perhaps look at moving the photo in the corneal development up a bit more and again I would provide more of a description of what is shown. If possible, I would try and make the abnormal retinal photo bigger.

Ocular manifestations is a bit confusing as im not sure if it’s a new heaing all together of if it is supposed to be part of the broad category of abnormalities. Your genetic section is well researched, I would just be careful in referencing the same paper too many times (25 is listed 5 times in this section) and perhaps try and find some other papers which compliment this research? I would probably put your reseach timeline at the bottome and include all of the treatment and clinical manifestation flowing on from each other. Note that in the research timeline, this is purely from one source, reference 26, and I would advise that you find alternative sources as well – im sure there would be individual research papers for each new date??

The anophthalmia section im assuming is still part of genetic abnormalities and I would recommend starting with the genes which are affected – to create a flow on effect. Other than that it is well references and easy to read. In regards to your photo I would have a description of what the photo is about in the enlarged view to assist with the readers comprehension. Also, at what point can these abnormalities be detected in the womb – either from an ultrasound or from sampling of the genes or something - and does this have an affect on whether the mother keeps the child or not? I think the environmental causes of abnormalities are good and I would suggest that you add photos here to break up the text and also to give us an understanding of what happens.

Finally, your glossary needs a fair few more words in there as to help with our understanding. You have many references which is great, however take a loot at 46 – 49 – they all seem to be the same? It would be appropriate to merge them into one reference.




The text on this page is very good, detailed and to the point. However a lot more images are needed on the page to make it more appealing, interesting and easier to follow.

The section under Ocular Manifestations is a little difficult to keep track of, there needs to be more of an introduction in that section highlighting the two sections that are to be discussed, then there should be a clear division between the two.

Also the placement of the few images on the page need to be organised a little better. The referencing on this page is done very well and its good to see an extensive use of resources.


I really liked the way how sub-divided the different abnormalities in vision and matched them with the corresponding image. However, further headings would be better for finding specific abnormalities especially when it comes to genetic causes. Also, the addition of normal eye functioning summary is a good recap on the eye before getting to abnormalities.

The molecular pathways are a bit hard to follow and confusing, although interesting.

The images are great and balanced with text, but the set out needs to change to make it more “friendly looking”.

Your glossary is good but may need a few more additions and extensive references are excellent.

Summary: overall very good and not complaints besides maybe think about the setting of the text to pictures.

Good luck with the rest ☺


- A very good start to the page with the introduction. It gives an overview of the page and is very nicely done --- an image in the beginning will make it more effective. Right now the starting is very text heavy so an image will not just tone it down but will have a more profound impact.

- Normal eye development is good too but just to make the text look not so heavy you can consider putting it in a table like a brief summary.

- Traditionally research timeline should go on the top of the page but I don’t think it’s a big issue. Again you should consider tabulating it so it looks not so text heavy.

- I like how you talk about each part of the eye and different genes. You have a range of articles which also seems great and shows how much effort you have put in.

- Research section is not so extensive so far so you might want to work on that.

At the moment the organisation of the page is not great and it is very text heavy. Even though there are many images on the page it still looks very text heavy. Adding tables might help breaking that up and also add make the page look bright.


The information that is present on this page is fantastic. However, i think the layout of the page inhibits your ability to access that information a little bit. Large sections of information go unbroken by images/tables/diagrams. This strains the eyes a little bit, making it a bit of a chore to read the page. Try and include a few more images, even if they are basic. In other areas however, the images included break up the page too much, creating large white areas, detracting from the pages presentation.

There also seems to be disunity in how the different sections are formatted in regards to paragraph headings and lists. This may just be a product of teamwork and assigning different people different sections to do.

However, one important thing is that I cannot fault you for the information. It seems to be in depth, up to date, and with well structured referencing. The images you have included are well explained and referenced as well.

Overall, quite good :)


As shown by your choice of sub-headings and research, the key points of your area of research are being addressed well! Your introduction flows well and gives a great overview of your page to the readers. Due to the focus of your page being on abnormal vision, a more succinct effort should be made to introducing normal eye development. I suggest the use of a student made flow diagram in order to clearly present the information as well as satisfy the criteria of this task.

The approach to the abnormalities section is so far on a great track. I particularly like the separation between genetic and environmental abnormalities as well as the use of a lot of research to introduce interesting concepts and clarify the reader’s understanding. In saying this, it would be beneficial to organise images in this section in a consistent manner, to mimic the image ‘appearance of cornea due to CHED’.

Be sure not to include too much detail on the molecular pathways and proteins if not entirely necessary in informing the audience about the abnormality in development. This would help eliminate any concepts that are too complex to understand.

The placement of the timeline before the new research was a good idea as it gives the reader good background knowledge. I would consider condensing this into a table so that it is more easy to read.

Overall, a great page but it could be more easier to read if the information was organised in a more succinct manner such as in tables, dot points and flow charts. The referencing style is consistent and correct and there is a good balance between old and current research.


"The introduction is good in the manner that it provides some brief background information regarding the normal development of the eye and abnormalities. Additionally, I liked how the introduction described the aims of the page because it sets up a structure for the reader to follow. Just make sure to proof read this section: “The development of the eye is very sensitive and REQUIRES accurate...”


In regards to the information presented and layout (outcomes 1, 2, 4 and 9):


1. Normal Eye Development: This section appears very well researched. I like how you referred to the stages throughout development. However, this section could be enhanced by adding an image of the normal eye structure and development – this acts as a reference point for your page viewers, allowing for a clear visual comparison between the abnormalities and normal structure.


2. Abnormal Development: I like the overview provided at the beginning as it sets the scene for what points you will be covering in this section. Great job. All sections are quite good, just perhaps include more images to further enhance your page.

a. Abnormal lens development: I liked how you first described the function of the gene in development and then stated any abnormalities that arise when the gene is not expressed or mutated. I liked how you included an image for the crystalline genes; just make sure to refer to the image in text (e.g. see fig. 1. or see accompanying image).

b. Abnormal corneal development: Similar to the abnormal lens section, there is a good explanation provided for each gene involved. Just some improvements: make sure to reference all information; e.g. No reference provided for “The ion transporter SLC4A11 promote sodium-dependent transport of borate as well as flux of sodium and hydroxyl ions. It has been shown that SLC4A11 is expressed in the endothelial cells of the cornea, and mutation of....”. The accompanying image has been referenced correctly and described, good work!

c. Abnormal retinal development: Once again, a great scope of research and information and suitable image. I liked how you described the impact of each mutation explicitly such as in Albinism “ganglion cells of retina decreased by 25%”. This really helps the reader to understand the extent of the abnormalities from certain gene mutations.


3. Ocular manifestations: the opening sentence is slightly vague. Could you please state which two separate sections that you are referring to? The section that follows could be better organised. It seems to jump from genetic issues to a research timeline then to future research on that disease to another example of a genetic mutation which produces abnormalities. I would suggest putting the research timeline shortly after the introduction and integrating research history not just on LCA but other abnormalities as well. However, the content for all these sections is well referenced and interesting to read. The balance between text and images between LCA and anopthalmia/micropthalmia sections is good and are both really interesting to read! I liked how you provided some epidemiological data and clinical manifestations in depth accompanied by suitable images. However, the environmental abnormalities section could use with more dot-point styles and images to enhance the presentation and aid in your descriptions.


In regards to peer teaching (outcome 5), this page was an absolute joy to read and all technical language was explained in the glossary. Just make sure to pay attention to those minor improvements. Good job!"


Introduction gives an overview of your project. This gives structure to your project. The introduction is a little too brief. It would be nice to add some detail about the significance of eye abnormalities:

  • how important is vision to humans
  • how does vision abnormalities affect people
  • how many people are suffering from major eye abnormalities, etc.

Great images. They highlight the severity of abnormalities associated with vision. It would be nice if you can make the images a little bigger or add more images. it just seem there's too much text and not enough images to break it up.

The normal development section is succinct and give sufficient background information so readers can understand the abnormalities section. It would be good if you can put this normal function part into point form or table. for example, 'stage...development'

The gene mutations section is very complicated. Maybe talk about the FOX genes and Pax6 genes in abnormal lens development and not as a separate section. This is so readers can associate the mutation with the disease immediately, without having to scroll to the bottom to find the consequences of such mutation. The layout makes the disease and gene section hard to understand. Maybe set it out as:

  • Genetic mutation
  • diseases from this mutation
  • clinical symptoms of diseases
  • treatments for the diseases

Most of the images are well referenced, except Albino Fundus image. for this image, you need the PMID reference style.

References 45-48 should be placed as one reference.

--Z3332863 17:26, 23 September 2012 (EST)


Your introduction is quite short, but it does state what you will be discussing on your page. You might want to include the normal development in the introduction, to allow for an overview of what normally happens before you actually start on the abnormal development. It just seems a little odd that you have abnormal vision as you title and then almost immediately after that you have a normal eye development heading.

I really like the chronological order used in the normal development section. It might be a bit easier to read if you use dot points. References seems to be fine, however, 4 and 5 are the same. It might also be useful to create a link to the group page on normal vision development.

Abnormal development consists of a few subheadings. Personally, I would delete the lines below the different subheadings. It will make it look more like one section on abnormal development. I think it was a good idea to look at the different parts of the eye related to abnormalities – lens, cornea, retina, etc. You look at different genes which play an important role at a certain developmental stage and you explain the resulting effects. I can see a lot of research has been done on this section. Images will need to be made bigger. They look insignificant with this size and it just seems like the text is going on and on. A lot of terms mentioned in this section are not included in the glossary, eg. Dysgenesis, substantia propria, CRX (what does it stand for?). Please add these in. Again, check your references, because some are the same, eg. 8 & 9.

Ocular manifestation is part of the abnormal development section (I think), so please make sure you show this with the headings. Again, immediately below this seems to be another heading with genetics, which has nothing included… or does LCA belong to genetics? I am a bit confused due to all your different headings and lines which seem to separate parts that may potentially belong together.

In your LCA section I would change the order of text a little: definition (as you have at the start), then epidemiology (which you have at the bottom), then the section on Dr Leber (up to “…placing great emphasis upon the high incidence of hereditary factors.”), lastly a new paragraph on the diagnosis (“As stated in the section on… diagnostic protocol for LCA”). The link to Abnormal Retinal Development does not work and will need editing. I can see that your timeline refers to LCA in particular and it is quite expansive. The one reference provided leads to a website with a timeline that seems to have been copied and pasted into your project. Please change this into your own words and (where possible) provide references to the original papers. The table also seems to be located in a strange position and it may be better to include this information in a table on history (in general), which you do not have at the moment. New research development also focuses on LCA only. Maybe create a separate section at the end where you can mention this and include more current research in brief paragraphs. The image relates well and has the appropriate citation, copyright and student template. The description could include a little more information.

Anophthalmia and microphthalmia are other genetic abnormalities described. Again, with the image you can expand slightly upon the description, but besides that it relates well to your text. Information provided is good, and includes the clinical description, genetic causes and management. Most important is that you use the same layout for your headings throughout your project. Within this one section you are using different subheadings and it all looks a bit chaotic and makes it less encouraging to read. You explain the role various genes play and I would like to know at what week/gestational stage they are important and can cause these abnormalities. Make sure all your references are correct, eg. There is no reference for 30.

It is probably good you only focused on 2 abnormalities caused by environmental factors. Images could really complement the text (although your whole page could probably use a few more images), so please add these. You include some relevant information and statistics, but make sure you also keep adding to the glossary. References are also the same for 45-48, hence these need editing.

In my opinion, firstly change the layout of your page and make it more organised with logical headings. Then focus on some of the other things mentioned above.

Hope this helps!


Your introduction is relatively well written and the brief explanation of new terms such as microphthalmia was particularly useful. Perhaps it would be possible to break the text into two paragraphs to make reading easier.

It is really good to see a section included about normal eye development as it provides a basis of understanding for the remainder of the page. Concise and to the point and not too complex, it's great. Only suggestion would be to place it in a table perhaps with each Carnegie stage a new entry.

Layout of abnormalities is very logical covering the main areas of developmental abnormalities. However it is slightly confusing that immediately under the title Abnormal Lens Development more information on normal development is given. Allocating the defects to their associated individual genes is good but perhaps instead of a dotpoint a subheading would be of more use. The actual information is clearly and effectively written. The inclusion of the pictures clearly illustrates the abnormalities but their placement is a little odd. Perhaps they are too large. The captions on the pictures are appropriate and the pictures are appropriately referenced and it is great that the link to the picture contains more information.

Under the title "Ocular Manifestations" perhaps indicate what the two sections are, just so the following on sections make sense and don't appear disjointed. The sections on the genetic caused abnormalities is fascinating and very well written. The timeline included in the information about Leber Congenital Amaurosis is particularly interesting. The spacing in the section on genes associated with Anophthalmia and Microphthalmia appears slightly strange. The figures included are particularly illustrative and appropriate. Similarly the section on environmentally caused abnormalities is really well written and interesting.

Perhaps a more extensive section on current research could be included. If possible, link the words in the glossary to where they appeared in the text. This is the coding if you don't have it Words for Glossary. Just add that in place of the word when you first mention it in the text. The citing and referencing is really well done. It also shows a great depth of research. The figures/photographs so far included are brilliant but the inclusion of a student drawn diagram somewhere if possible would be effective. Also try and fix the general layout of the project, possibly including some more subheadings. In general the content relates to the the course and is pitched at an appropriate level. Hope this helps.


The introduction was okay, however avoid referring to the rest of the page within the introduction - it should stand on its own.

Normal eye development is very succinct, however maybe consider adding an image here to aid with your explanation.

The abnormal section is very good and well researched. The images included are good, however as with the introduction, avoid using language such as "in the section below, we have focused on..."

The ocular manifestations section is very good but just needs to be organised better, the headings are somewhat confusing. Good use of images, timeline, and subheadings for different genes. The management section is also very interesting and can be elaborated on.

The glossary is good but the formatting can be improved - perhaps putting the key terms in bold or at least making all the terms italic rather than half and half.

The reference list is extensive which is good, but don't forget to add to the external links section.


The differentiation between genetic and environmental abnormalities is an excellent idea and stood out immediately. This differentiation adds on to the organisation of the page and allows the information to be read with ease. However, the inclusion of tables and flow chart would go well in the page and make the information easier to follow. In addition to this, it would be great to see a few external links to make the page more engaging and guide audience to more more detailed information about certain abnormalities.

The information included is very extensive and highlight a great level of research. However, some of the information seems to be quite complex and difficult to understand. It is fine to cover difficult to concepts, but try to expand on it to allow for people to understand it or provide external/internal links which would provide more information and make the content easier to comprehend.

Having explained the function of genes in development and then explained any possible abnormalities that can arise in abnormal lens/corneal/retinal development made the information much easier to grasp. It allowed the information to flow and and the text seemed to follow a logical order. The inclusion of images in this section is great, whereas more images/diagrams is required for the rest of the page.

Covering the normal development is important and the chronological order used makes it easy to follow, however, keep in mind that there is a different project solely on normal development and therefore try not to expand to much about this topic. The referencing seems to be correct, and it is great to see a large range of sources have been used. One section that will require some work is the current research section as it does not seem like there is enough information. Apart from the issues raised, this page seems very promising.



  • Introduction: The introduction is quite well written and very detailed. Rather than going straight into details of development, perhaps first make it clear from the exactly what this project page is about and what content you will be covering. There are also some grammatical errors, such as “treatments or cures ‘’’maybe’’’ developed in the future and these conditions can be better managed.” Maybe = may be
  • Normal eye development: This section shows a good depth of research, is strongly related to the aims of the embryology course and shows a good depth of research. Improvements could be made by the use of bullet points, tables or bold text to highlight key points. Also, labeled images or hand-drawn diagrams would go well to compliment the text.
  • Abnormal Development: There is a good depth of research and it is well written. The use of headings, figures and italics makes it easy to follow the flow of information. Improvements could be made by providing more information about the diseases, for example, what is Peters' anomaly (Corneal Opacity) and aniridia (lack of Iris)? Is it curable? What are methods of detection? How will it effect the future baby?
  • Ocular Manifestations: This section seems incomplete; or maybe its just poorly organized? What are the two separate sections? Is this related to the sections that follow?
  • Research Time line: This is a good time line, however only one source has been used. This provides a good summary of significant discoveries, but it has not been explained why these discoveries were important or how it is relevant to the development of the eye.
  • New Research Development: This section is well researched, however the poor structuring and layout of the information makes it difficult to read and follow. For example there are many headings and subheadings however it is unclear what sections of information are grouped together. The images draw the readers attention and there seems to be a good depth of research into the topic.
  • Group Assessment Criteria: The key points relating to the topic that your group was allocated are clearly described in the introduction. The choice of content and depth of research shows a good understanding of the topic area, however the information could be better organized by the use of tables, bullet points and bolded text to highlight key points. The content is correctly cited and referenced. Most sections are well paraphrased for teaching at a peer level, however the use of hand-drawn diagrams and/or labeled images could enhance the information in the text. The information covered is strongly related the the learning aims of embryology.

It was very good to see that this interesting topic has been well researched and that there are a number of references appropriately cited in the page.

Currently, there is a lot of text that, I as a reader, felt overwhelmed when assessing. More/larger images may need to be uploaded, or the correct formatting/resizing of existing images in order to potential rectify these concerns. It is noteworthy, however, that the ratio between text and imaging improves toward the bottom end of the page. It was good to see that there was all relevant summary, referencing and uploading information for the images that were present. Keep in mind that there is an option, and we have been encouraged to upload images that have been student drawn.

The over all formatting of the page, besides being packed with written information, had a couple of spacing issues, from extreme spaces between the bullet point genes and consequent descriptions, in the ‘abnormal lens development section’, to virtually no singular spacing between the research timeline. in the ‘Genes’ section.

A way to aid to the above so that the page potentially is more visually appealing, is to place the genes and subsequent function into tables, or even placing the timeline information in a table form, or adding originality by actually placing this information on a timeline generated by one of the group members. Overall though, I found that it was a very engaging topic and page presented.



Group 5- abnormal vision

-content of introduction is good and immediately puts the page in context. Emphasises abnormal development. Perhaps reconsider the syntax of some of the sentences

-paragraphing throughout project needs review

-a picture near the beginning would make the page more engaging. Seeing you can't talk too much about normal eye development, it might help in conveying some information

-you frequently make use of the carnergie stages, which is great, but perhaps briefly describe what this system means

-it's good that you have contrasted normal and abnormal development for each structure, but make sure the information isn't repeated in the "normal development" section, or perhaps remove that section altogether

- info about what the different genes control is good. What does "the first embryonic days 8.5" mean?

-I assume the two separate sections in "ocular manifestations" are genetic and environmental, but because they're not stated in the intro of this section and there's so much information in-between, it's difficult to tell. The formatting of this section adds to the confusion. Keeping the information and formatting consistent for each abnormality will make this easier to follow. The appropriate heading, sub-heading etc formatting needs to be used as well

-I like your case study, it reminds us of how these problems effect real people

-no current research or external links section?

-excellent use of resources



Introduction is sufficient for now, but it may be better if you add more details, with more references, and perhaps an image to support it. Maybe an image of the eye and its structural components labelled, with functions explained in the caption.

You could add some images for the normal eye development.

Ocular manifestations section needs more work. It is good that you have added appropriate referencing for the information posted so far. Add more details in clinical manifestation, as it is difficult to follow. Add some images to support the text, especially in the research timeline.

New research development section is very well done, it is very detailed and has a good balance of text and images. But your images needs more description in the image details.

When you are talking about the genes such as PAX6, OTX2, RAX, it would be good if you format it to make it bold, and add them to the glossary section.

The glossary is very lacking, it needs more words.

The reference section is good so far and has correct formatting. However you have repeated some of the same references a few times. You need to fix that.

There are no external links listed as of yet. Please add some useful external links.




Abnormal Vision

An excellent straight forward introduction, presentation and layout of the page is questionable perhaps the use of different summary methods would improve this for example dot points along with image choice and size. A common topic among all groups is to expand the glossary which is easily done and will only improve the finished merchandise. Language used throughout could be less primitive, very simplistic in certain sections. The referencing is satisfactory although external links section has been left out. All the information is present although the organisation skills need to be assessed to allow optimum presentation of ideas. The text contains in-depth embryological teachings aims. The page looks promising and editing is the easiest part once corrected I expect a sound result. --Z3330795 09:54, 26 September 2012 (EST)


Abnormal Vision

Your introduction is short, but did state what you will be duscussing and the purpose of the webpage. However I think it would help by having more on what the abormalites are and how they affect people suffering from it. The section on normal eye development had sufficient information, though a few images would help. The section on Abnormal Development and and the choice of subsection is very well thought out and presented. The texts were easy to read and very detailed. More importantly, they were backed up current research which shows information is up to date. However, be careful not to have too much on the molecular pathways as can be hard to understand (may be break them up a bit and relate them to the concept discussed). More attention needs to be paid the formatting of the text and the placement of the images but otherwise, great job.

Discussion

Hey so what organ did everyone decide on heart or liver. I vote for the Liver


Hi Team! I would first like to apologize for not coming on Wednesday on our practical. So I am sorry one more time for that. I am coming to practicals this Wednesday so we can discuss our topics. Just to ask what happen on Wednesday in regards of our group project? So we need to decide between heart or liver to write our project? If that is so...I vote for the heart then:)

remember to sign after contributions to this page

Hey kidlings, just to let you know, I'm going to be looking through my path/grey's anatomy textbooks for anything i can possibly find. I think we should start with a little intro of what is the normal development and then have some abnormalities that can stem from that? Thoughts? --Z3374173 19:17, 21 August 2012 (EST)

Hey Team, some ideas for the focus of our topic. 1. a basic overview of the development of the eye, 2. divide the eye up into it regions of development and look at the abnormalities that can occur, including the factors which make it abnormal: congenital or defect; percentage of occurance in society and/or likely hood aquiring it; processes of the abnormal development (how abnormaility occurs); living with the abnormality; any treatments and/or prevntions for the abnormality. --Z3220343 19:31, 21 August 2012 (EST)

Possible sources: [1] [2] --Z3374173 10:12, 22 August 2012 (EST)

Textbook: The Developing Human Chapter 20 [3] --Z3220343 10:14, 22 August 2012 (EST)

Looking through textbooks, I have found Retinoblastoma which is a tumor usually in the posterior retina. It says it can occur in 2 year olds but also can occur at birth, so that could be a developmental one. I found that in my pathology textbook, Others i found could be Horner's syndrome, that apparently can start developing in fetal development. I'll go through my mums old midwifery textbooks too. Anyone else find anything?--Z3374173 16:49, 26 August 2012 (EST)

Hey so i was looking through the textbook and i found a list of defects of the retina. further down it also talks about congenital glaucoma. [4] i found this while surfing pubmed may be of some use?[5] i had heard of a genetic disorder in which if both parents are carriers the baby has 25% chance being born blind. i think this was the disorder if not, it still could be interesting for our assignment [6][7][8]--Z3220343 21:09, 28 August 2012 (EST)

I think I shall do Horner's Syndrome. [9]--Z3374173 11:29, 29 August 2012 (EST)

Hi team :D I just found an article that talks about all the current knowledge on conditions related to abnormal visual development in infants. In the article, they have aslo included prevalence, risk factors and mechanisms that are involved with the development of these conditions. I think it would be quite useful to our own topic. Just letting everyone know, i will be doing congenital cataracts. [10]--Z3331330 12:36, 29 August 2012 (EST)

Heres another article description of the normal visual development, each component of the visual system is included and explained very clearly, this would be useful for our general overview on the development of the eye. In particular, the retina development is also mentioned in the article which we can make use of when comparing our disorder with the normal development. [11]--Z3331330 12:47, 29 August 2012 (EST)

Hey Guys, After trawlling through stacks of info on Horner's syndrome I'm not satisfied with the amount of info there is so I'm going to change it up and try Chorioretinal Scars. I can find more information and really hope this comes together!! --Z3374173 21:34, 10 September 2012 (EST)

I did the normal development, feel free to check it over, make changes etc, I have the PDF files of the articles i used if you need to check. Also, I've forgotten how to make all the reference bind together if they are the same text, i cant seem to find the help to help me so I'm just going to leave it until someone can help me! --Z3374173 17:07, 12 September 2012 (EST)

hey team, do u guys think that we have enough information? what else should we add in if we do need some more.--Z3331330 22:00, 17 September 2012 (EST)