Talk:2014 Group Project 2

This is the discussion page for your project.

• Use this page to discuss online the project with your group members.
• Paste useful resources here.
• Remember to use your signature button to identify who you are when adding content here.
• The following collapsed tables provide starting points for students during project work, you also have tutorials built into practical classes and practice exercises for individual assessmet items.

Group 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.

Uploading Images First Read the help page Images The following describes how to upload an image with all the information that must be associated with it. The image must first be uploaded to the site. Open the left hand menu item “Toolbox” and click “Upload file” and a new window will open. Click the button ”Choose file” and navigate to where the image is located on your computer and double click the file. The window will now show the file name in the “Source filename” window. You can then rename the uploaded file in the “Destination filename” window. Make sure the new name accurately describes the image. Add a description of the image to the “Summary” window. Note the description must include: An image name as a section heading. Any further description of what the image shows. A subsection labeled “Reference” and under this the original image source, appropriate reference and all copyright information. Finally a template indicating that this is a student image. {{Template:Student Image}} Images not including the above information will be deleted by the course coordinator and be considered in the student assessment process. Students cannot delete uploaded images. Contact the course coordinator with the file address.

Referencing First Read the help page Referencing All references used in making your project page should be cited where they appear in the text or images. In page edit mode where XXXX is the PubMed ID number use the following code. <ref name=”PMIDXXXX”><pubmed>XXXX</pubmed></ref> For references not listed on PubMed, and text can be inserted between <ref></ref> tags. Where the reference list will appear make a new section and on a new line the following code. <references/>

Plagiarism First Read the help page Copyright Tutorial 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 of this information was 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. Please also read Copyright Tutorial with regard to content that can be used in your project.

Project Analysis 24 Sep
--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) Individual student data for each group has also been analysed.
--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) I have masked student ID. Individual students will know how much work you have been doing to date. I will be contacting those student on 5 edits or below.

2014 Student Projects: Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | Group 6 | Group 7 | Group 8

--Mark Hill (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2014 (EST) These student projects have now been finalised and undergoing final assessment.

Group 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.

Peer Reviews

The introduction section of the page is well written and provides a nice overview to the whole project that unifies each subpages subheadings to a project as a whole. Some potential ideas for historic findings section may be to use some sort of timeline or table with some visual effects through historical images/ drawings. Developmental timeline is clear and concise however this section would be more effective with a greater amount of detail and perhaps a panel of images to convey visually each stage of development. The current research models section was very well written with two relevant current papers discussed- perhaps a few additional papers can be cited- even under and expanded box format so that the readers can be linked to other current studies in the area of interest. The explanation of the figure is also really well presented and described. The section with the subheadings of kidney, ureter and bladder is very well researched and presented- well informed, great use of images and also well referenced. One area for improvement could perhaps be presenting the information in a simpler way as at times it seems too bunched up- maybe smaller bullet points. The image within the urethra subheading is missing a figure caption. Abnormalities section was very descriptive and informative- may be a few more abnormalities could be listed. Overall reference section is also done correctly although some sections individual references need to be integrated into this overall section.

---

The introduction provides a very informative description of the functions of the kidney and bladder. Perhaps it would be good to give some more details of the embryonic development just to quickly summarise what has been happening with the fetus up until this point. Also, maybe the introduction should introduce what the page’s content is going to cover. The order of historic findings and then developmental timeline is appropriate as historic findings can be used to compile the timeline. It would also be useful to have the timeline in a table format to make the page look neater and more simplified. Also, there is no research done on ‘historic findings’ so need to address that before final submission.

‘Current research models’ section is good but brief and requires more extensive research as only two articles are cited. There should be information on current models used to study renal development as well as current research and findings. The image in this section is well presented, with appropriate titling, referencing, image descriptions and copyright information with the student image template. Sections 1.5-1.8 should be smaller sub headings under the larger heading ‘System Development’ and perhaps should go at the top of the page, beneath the introduction seeing as in order to understand research and historic findings, it is necessary to understand renal development first.

It is very good that there is a small section on early development, however maybe it would be better to have it more briefly explained, perhaps in the form of a student drawn diagram or presented as a table. There also is a problem with the image uploaded in the early development section, so should fix that before final submission. The ‘abnormalities’ section is also done well however more conditions should be listed and described with pictures for each one. There are also only abnormalities of the kidneys listed, so maybe it would be better to have more of the other components of the renal system as well (bladder, ureter, urethra).

Also, maybe more information regarding the anatomy of the kidneys and renal system should be added, as this is an anatomy course. Some images are also missing the student image template. Most images are uploaded correctly with the right information, maybe more would make the page look more aesthetically pleasing as well as assist learning.

Referencing is done correctly with a numbering system and in-text citations are also correct. The in-text referencing in the ‘anatomical position’ sub section of ‘fetal development’ of the ‘Kidney’ section is not referenced appropriately so just fix that minor problem.

Overall, this is great work and should just include more information in certain sections and upload more images, preferably some student drawn images as well. Well done!

---

The introduction is well addressed as it sufficiently describes what the renal system is about and its function. Not to mention its anatomical structure as well as the difference between the embryonic and fetal stages of development. This differentiation enables viewers to understand what the content will be focused on, which is fetal development. Also, it helps focus the viewer’s attention on how the project will be divided as the group mentions abnormalities in the last paragraph. Overall the introduction has the right amount of information from each subheading and is very easy to comprehend.

There isn’t any information under ‘historic findings’. If there are any difficulties in finding some historic findings, members of the group can go to pubmed and on the side will be dates such as 1920 that could contain key historical events when renal is entered on search. The use of a development timeline was great as they outlined the major events that occur in a concise manner. Although, I believe a glossary is needed for words like ‘metanephros’ since the viewers would not know what that is. The content under current research models is interesting and correctly describes what the studies were about. Overall, the content used in the project was relating to the topic (fetal development of the kidney) and clearly showed extensive research. I really like how the group divided the different parts of the renal system as well as describing their anatomical positions. The abnormalities listed are also interesting and very easy to understand. I’m hoping to see information under the Horseshoe kidney disease.

In terms of images, there should be an image under introduction perhaps having all features of the renal system. Most images are missing the ‘student template’ aspect of the referencing and needs to be added right away. Other aspects such as description, copyright and referencing were correct. I also like the use of footnotes to describe what the images are about, however some are missing on the page such as the one under ‘anatomical position’ and ‘urethra’. The image used for the ‘development of the kidney’ should be removed from the page as it isn’t permissible. It should be replaced with an image relating to the content and have all the correct copyright and referencing information. Overall, I like the number of images used and its significance to the renal system. They accurately relate to the content of the project.

There is use of in-cite referencing which is good, however some references are just listed and should be placed under the proper ‘references’ subheading such as the ones under ‘ureter’ and ‘renal agenesis’. Some references in the ‘references’ list are used over again and can be fixed by combining it under one reference number. To make the project even more appealing, the group could format the information under ‘developmental timeline’ or even ’historic findings’ in a table. Overall, I think this project is great and by making edits based on the peer-reviews received could enhance their project.

---

I think that this is a great start to the project. Your project appears well researched and informative, yet there are a few areas which need improvement to ensure that your project clearly demonstrates the developmental stages of renal development. I thought that over, the introduction was a good start to the project and clearly identifies the major components of the renal system and its functions. Because this is highly descriptive, I think it would benefit from a diagram or even video which could couple your description. The developmental timeline is a good idea, however I think severely lacks content. It would be a good idea to add a table or some form of diagrammatic representation of the historical findings, and the addition of pictures would greatly benefit the clarity of your work.

The current research is quite well done and seems heavily researched. There are areas which are a little bit too wordy at times, and your paragraphs are quite long- I think it would be of great benefit if you were to reduce your paragraphs into shorter bullet points so as to convey the main ideas that you are speaking about. Also, maybe a table would assist in ensuring the clarity of your work.

Overall, I think this is a great project and is off to a good start! There are a few things that need fixing- such as the developmental timeline, but I’m sure that it will come along nicely by the time submission is due.

---

Really good introduction! It clearly outlines what is in the page. Most key points were done really well except for historic findings. There is a section on the Wikipage that has old books on embryology. It’s under the “Explore” tab and you’ll see “Historic embryo”. The developmental timeline would’ve been better if it was in a table, has an image showing the major steps in development, and is within the development section of the page. Regarding the development section, very detailed and informative. It clearly outlines the development of the renal system in the fetal stage. Dividing this section into the different organs is a very smart decision. It makes it a lot less confusing to the reader. Maybe try to breakdown some of the information and use dot points. There are lots of images to give the readers a visual of the developmental process. Also, the images have captions, which is great.

Great job on the current research section. The articles chosen for current research is highly relevant to the topic and to the project. This section is written concisely and very detailed. The image really helps to understand the findings of the research. The same can be said to the abnormalities section. Each disease was written concisely and is very informative. The images really help in terms of understanding the clinical manifestation/s of each disease. Try to find information on current treatments and/or management techniques for each disease.

Looking at the images included, all of them seems to be properly uploaded except for the “Kidney ascent.jpg”. It is missing its copyright information. From what I know, images from textbooks normally can’t be used because of copyright. Other than that, all the images are relevant and function as an aid to understanding what each section is about. In regards of citation and references, everything looks good. Each section was well-researched and properly cited. Great job on organising most of your references at the bottom of the page. The page looks very clean. In summary, focus on getting the historic findings section done and just minor fixes on images. Well done!

---

In this review I will attempt to highlight the strengths of your project and identify some areas for improvement, in light of the criteria provided.

I believe the developmental timeline is a great way to summarise the major events at each stage in fetal development and serves as a simple introduction to the project. However I think it would be best if you presented this information in a tabulated format, and perhaps you should include a little more detail for each developmental stage. For instance “Week 8 – Mature kidney is formed” you could also mention some structures features that allow us to recognise that it is a mature kidney (hallmarks of a mature kidney)

I think the current research section delves into a number in interesting areas, mentioning studies investigating treatment options for congenital renal abnormalities. I think another interesting area that you could address is the molecular signalling and gene expression process that drives the underlying differentiation and development of the renal system.

The abnormalities associated with renal development in the feral period have been well researched and the information provided is well structured. However this section seems incomplete. I see a number of additional links to interesting scholarly articles. I think you should discuss some more abnormalities and divide them up into abnormalities arising in the early and late stages of fetal development. I also suggest including images or diagrams to break up the text and make the descriptive text easy to visualise.

There is has been little information added on the historic findings. This is an essential component of the project. I suggest looking at text books in the library or searching the UNSW database to find information for this section.

I really like how you have selected labeled diagrams to compliment and break up the text. Each image is relevant to the topic being discussed and the small description attached really help the reader orient them selves. Overall this project is coming along nicely. Just ensure that you are making progress on all the sections. Also only include relevant references. Finally proof read and review your work before the final submission.

---

This is an excellent introduction and gives a great expectation for the information to come later in the project. The current research models section needs to be checked for spelling and grammar. The information here is good but is also very dense and hard to follow. It would be great if you could break it up a bit with bullet points or more images or tables. This style of writing is very professional and would be perfect for a report or essay, however as a wiki page it is too hard to follow. Breaking up the information into bullet point and tables would allow you to guide the reader through a journey of renal system development.

There has clearly been a lot of research and work put into this project and that is very commendable. However on a whole, there is too much information. It’s difficult to read and grasp a wholesome understanding of the renal system when it delves too deep too quickly. One suggestion is giving a more brief explanation of the timeline of nephrogenesis, urethra, ureter and bladder development and then go into more detail in a subheading called “current research findings”. The references under the abnormalities heading should be incorporated at the very end.

---

The introduction delivers a conventional scope of the renal system, allowing the audience to understand the structure and function to the parts of this system. Maybe consider uploading a picture that would illustrate the overall information in the introduction.

The developmental timeline is a great idea that outlines the significant events and in turn helps put major events into perspective, making it more effective for students to study and understand. However maybe consider presenting this information in the table format or see if you can get a vertical/horizontal line to represent the timeline. I feel that there is not enough information in the 'Historic findings' and perhaps you could do some more research.

The "Current research" section is very detailed and shows a great amount of research of recent articles that are relevant. The images included in the current research and the abnormalities section is great as it makes reference to the topic spoken about, giving the student a further understanding of the topic. The images are referenced properly except for “Kidney ascent.jpg”, it's missing a reference.

Overall this page is coming along nicely however you need to work on your development timeline formatting it in order to present a systematic presentation as a means to make it more friendly.

---

This so far is a really good. You have all obviously done your research as well as you have got a lot of references throughout your page which again is great. The introduction is well done, clear and concise which is good. Maybe think about adding an image to make it a bit more appealing. You will obviously need to add some historic findings, but I’m sure your aware of that. The developmental timeline I think could be improved if you were to tabulate it as other projects have done that and it looks really good and more professional. The referencing is well done as it looks good having all the references down the bottom of the page. There are some references over the page which have just been listed so it may be a good idea to change this so that they are all down the bottom.

You have made a good start on the current research models. Note the buy in the line ‘One recent research paper buy Al-Odat et al.’ should be by. I don’t think you should actually reference the paper in your writing either. You should reference it but do so by using a footnote rather than actually saying the names of the people. The development of the kidney image has not worked so look at the formatting of that image.

On the bigger picture of this project something that I have noticed is that the balance of writing to images is heavily towards the information writing side. So I think it would be good if you were able to tip this balance with a few more pictures as it would make the page more appealing. I think in doing so you could add some student images as this will make the page more interesting, Also spacing your information out as at times when you look at a whole chink of writing you don’t feel like reading it, so I think spacing it out more will help.

Overall though it is a well done project. A few things such as the references that have been just listed on the page that need to go down the bottom, inclusion of some more student images, and tipping the balance of your page more in favor of images would go a long way in making your project even better. But you have done a good job so far and best of luck with the rest of it.

---

At the first scroll of this page it already seemed completely sufficiently. The structural layout is done really well and it’s good to see that it’s done according to the advised sub headings. The introduction is really well done, provides a great explanation into renal development, an abundant overview of the whole page and topics that will be addressed. The info for ‘historic findings’ seems to be lacking content, might be useful to search under the “Explore” tab on the left had side of the embryo page, clicking on the sub heading ‘historic embryo’. Also a useful source is the unsw library as it spans a longer period of time and following the unsw search then research the article in the pubmed site. Might be nice to format a proper timeline or use a table. The ‘current research models’ section is done really well with an abundant amount of detail in each study presented and good use of images. The use of a descriptive caption under each image is done proficiently, it is nice to see that each section has incorporated some form of visual whether histological or from research studies. The ‘kidney’ section is structured really well, the use of the content under early development is unnecessarily but is useful in introducing the stage prior to fetal development. Under the’ anatomical position’ sub heading the in text citations need to be adjusted. For references that are not pubmed use this format; . Also the image provided will most likely need to be deleted and then drawn, as we are not allowed to use images directly from textbooks. Just re draw the image if you can and then upload it as you would with any other image. Another suggestion for each of the corresponding organs in renal development, try to format some of the content into dot points or tables so not all lengthy paragraphs. Also noticed one of the images doesn’t have a caption this being under the urethra section. Very well detailed info on the abnormalities, would suggest to add a few more to be completely sufficient.

Lastly, the page has been completed to a high standard in the completion of all the info provided and subsequent images among each section. A few things have been noted, and there are only a few minor modifications that will need to be made these includes; referencing and some formatting as mentioned previously. The use of in text citations throughout the whole page is done efficiently, try to just try keep your references under one main heading. There is great effort noted in the research accumulated so far through the long list of references used to gather the info. Fantastic work everyone, keep up the great work !

---

The introduction provided by this project is very good and includes in-text citations. Not only does it introduce the renal system’s components but also discusses its development briefly into the embryonic and fetal stages, focusing more on fetal. Also, by having the references as one long list at the very end of the page, this gives the project a clean and tidy look, which some of the others lack. I thought this was a great idea and very orderly.

While some sections are full of information, others are scarce or empty, such as the ‘Historical findings’ section. Some information on the development of knowledge on the renal system throughout history should be included here, maybe making use of dot points detailing specific year dates. The ‘Developmental Timeline’ provides a good overview of the system’s development, although weeks 3-5 may not be necessary as these are during the embryonic period and the focus here is on fetal development. However, it does provide an overall context which is good. This information may also be effectively translated into a table format for easier readability.

The section on ‘current research models’ was nicely written, with solid analysis of 2 research articles. Using any more articles to that level of depth may be too much information, so this is a good balance. It was very good to see the text actually explaining the accompanying image, which was labelled with a caption too. The introduction to the use of animal models and why these are important was effective also.

I particularly thought the sub-sectioning of the page into the main organs of the renal system was a smart idea rather than having the entire system as a clump of information as this way, it is easier to navigate through the information. The ‘kidney’ section was of a very high standard as the information was relevant and nicely split into different processes of fetal development such as nephrogenesis and renin production. It is very helpful as a reader to have explanations of the images used, making the page more interactive and useful. However, this is a file with a ‘Permission error’ present which would need removal due to copyright infringement; this should be sorted out before the project is due.

The following three sections on the urethra, ureter and bladder were also well-written, referenced correctly with in-text citations and the images used were relevant to the text. However, captioning the image in the urethra section would be good to give the reader knowledge of exactly what it shows. The ‘abnormalities’ section was again, well -researched and full of information, however it seems a little cluttered as lengthy references are placed under the text. Integrating these into the overall reference list at the end of the page would look clearer.

Overall, this project has been well done and there is evidence of consistency throughout the section formatting, suggesting the group members have been communicating between each other, which is good to see. Some improvements I would suggest are the use of hand-drawn images to make it easier for a student to learn off the project, and using tables to summarise some information e.g. timeline.

---

The introduction is good and describes the project well. It is good to mention the function of renal system. It would be better if it states that the website will be focused on fetal development, current research and abnormalities to give a better understanding of the content.

Information under historic findings is missing, it would be a good way to start it by looking at textbooks. Images, bullet points and table can be used for an easy understanding of this section.

Using timeline to summarise the development of kidney is a good idea, however it would be clearer if a table is used, more descriptions under each stages and some images are include. Also, some references should be included in this section.

There are a lot of details under development, current research and abnormalities. It would be easier to read if they are written in point form. It is a good idea to divide renal system into several parts (kidney, urethra…) for the explanation of development. For the abnormalities, it is well-researched but some of the details are missing. It would be better if the each type of abnormalities is discussed equally.

Regarding the images, it is good and clear to explain each of them. The only problem is that there is no copyright information under the file “kidney ascent.jpg”.

The project is informative but lacking some information under historic findings and the developmental timeline.

---

The introduction of Group 2 is very succinct and straight to the point. I believe it could be improved with clear subheadings- such as ‘Bladder’ or ‘Nephrons’ (only a suggestion though!). I believe the group could add what they’re page hopes to achieve (outcomes).

The timeline/develop section of this project could be improved with a better. Add the table before or after the findings of the research paper. I believe with the table, that it could be better described and more information added to it. There is a good choice of headings though, as it has been clearly classified into distinct time points. The scientific research that accompanies this section also has a very good choice of headings/sub-headings. I do believe that this section could, however, be summarised and added to the table format above. There is excellent referencing and strong evidence of significant scientific research. I believe more recent and varying studies in the “recent research and findings’ section could be included. I also believe this section could be improved with a better layout- with clear, concise headings identifying what these studies found and when. The historic findings section needs to be addressed/included!

The Abnormalities section is excellent. It is informative, with a good choice of abnormalities and appropriate headings/sub-headings. It has a good choice of images and is correctly referenced.

---

The introduction to renal development in the embryonic stages has been written well as it clearly summarises this and conveys to the reader what will be covered below. Furthermore, renal development flows well as the information provided is clear and concise further displaying understanding of the topic. An image could be used that can help summarise the renal development stages in the embryonic period.

Strengths

• Introduction written well as it summarises the concepts well.

• Some images have a description such as ‘Glomerula number in Smoke Exposed and Control offspring’.

• Headings are short and to the point.

• Abnormalities section written well with in-text citations and the use of footnotes to good effect.

• Overall structure looks good.

Weaknesses

• Some images do not have a description of what the image is showing or an image name. For example, the image in the urethra development section.

• Consistency is not followed to great effect such as some images push the writing to the left side and others to the right side.

• Introduction could be updated indicating that these areas in renal development are covered in detail below as well as for more detailed information to be found in articles that have referenced.

• Some references have been placed under headings in the ureter for example. These references should be put in the end so as to maintain structure and consistency.

• Minimal grammatical errors found.

• Ensure that copyright clearance checked on images as one image has been removed and should be taken note of.

• Tabulated form of the timeline could be used or a good summary image.

• Information should be added to the historic findings heading ( 1700’s and on)

---

RENAL SYSTEM

Introduction Background Timeline of development - everyone will research first to get general idea of when,what and how long it will develop. Divide this area up from there. Development of Actual system - all organs and parts that contribute to it (will be divided up later) Abnormalities

ACTUAL RESEARCH FIRST, THEN DIVIDE. SEE HOW MUCH INFO AND PARTS THERE IS FIRST

ANNOUNCEMENTS

http://www.ehd.org/science_main.php?level=a&submit3.x=73&submit3.y=21&s18=on&ops=&re=on&L1=1&L2=0 have a look at this web site, good time line --Z3463310 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2014 (EST)

Looks good. There wont be much we can say for all the individual events that occur since all of it is up to the 8th week, but it'll give us a good starting point. We can say 'such and such has been formed during the embryo period' and we can move on from there. I also found the following site which gives a nice intro into the components of the renal system and some general info on each part. Thought we might be able to incorporate a bit of it, talk about what the system/organ does, then follow on how it develops. Use it as a bit of a guide to how we could do our own. http://www.myvmc.com/anatomy/urinary-system-renal-system/ --Z3465654 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (EST)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpediatrics.med.unc.edu%2Feducation%2Fcurrent-residents%2Frotation-information%2Fnephrology%2Ffiles-1%2FNephrogenesis.ppt this web site goes into quite a lot of detail regarding how the renal system develops.

I think in terms of dividing the work:

• 1- urine formation (week 11~12) & amniotic sac
• 2- kidneys descending from where they developed to adult anatomical positions (week 9)
• 3- development of trigone of the bladder and allantois
• 4- structures that arise from the Metanephric mesoderm
• 5- structures that arise from the Ureteric bud
• 6- abnormalities (developmental and genetic)
• 7- introduction
• 8- timeline of events in development

I've thought of 8 topics we can divide the work into, so lets choose 2 each? I preferably want to do abnormalities and urine formation (number 1 and 6), is that ok? we need this sorted out for our lab homework thing for this week. please reply asap. --Z3463310 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2014 (EST)

On the actual project page when you expand the bit at the top there are 5 bullet point but the first one is just to come up with our title, shall we divide our project into those 4 different headings?: Review that system development during the fetal period. Identify current research models and finding. Identify historic findings. Identify abnormalities that can occur in this system during the fetal period

Hey guys, i have now gone and updated the page and added sub-headings as suggested by above, please feel free to add or delete anything you seem unfit for the page. As for the online assessment due tomorrow, i agree that 2 each is appropriate although the timeline will be very long and would be unfair if one person to do the whole thing... We should probably divide the timetable based on weeks and then assign who wants to do what. Although i thought we agreed that i would do the abnormalities as discussed in the last lab...? i have already started to do some research on the topic....

Here is a basic summary of some of the development structures in the renal system, as well as their abnormalities https://web.duke.edu/anatomy/embryology/urogenital/urogenital.html

--Z3465141 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2014 (EST)

Ill look at 4 and 5 if that is alright with everyone (structures that arise from the Metanephric mesoderm and the Ureteric bud), I think we need to also write a bit about Historic findings and current research models --Z5030311 (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (EST)

I can do the descending of the kidneys and the development of the bladder (2 and 3) if everyone is fine with that --Z3465654 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (EST)

Uh I guess that leaves 1 & 8 then, since no one wants to do the timeline xD It doesnt look too hard so i dont mind doing timeline :) so whoever only took 1 topic, can you please do the intro as well please? Also im not 100% on the topics, but it'll have to do for now. add as we go i guess. --Z3463310 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (EST)

yeah no worries, there will most likely be changes to the topics, or at least the headings. It's only set out the way it is now just so we can have a general layout, have some idea what to research. I also dont think we'll end up sticking to the subheading we chose, as there is a lot of stuff that will cross over to other topics. I think we said that the timeline would be one of the last things we would do yeah? cause after we research all the organs and stuff as it develops, it would be easier to determine when it all develops as well, so we could just stick all that info together at the end. --Z3465654 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2014 (EST)

--Z3463310 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (EST)

• kidney(nephrogenesis0 - Sam
• ureter - Bahar
• urethra & fetal urination - Emily
• bladder - Rachel

• intro - Emily
• historic findings - Emily
• abnormalities - Bahar
• current models - Rachel

• developmental timeline (everyone)

HOW IS EVERYONE GOING WITH THEIR PART???? www.lab.anhb.uwa.edu.au/hsd212/.../KidneyDevelopmentPrint.ppt --> this powerpoint gives a good general intro to renal development btw if anyone wants to see?

GIRLS are we going to keep the whole assignment as apa referencing or as harvard? --Z3463310 (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2014 (EST)

umm i guess APA since thats the actual formal type of referencing. or you can just try and structure it the way its auto generated when you type in pubmed links haha. im gonna try and put some more content up about the kidneys in a couple days and a drawing or two. ill get some historic findings done as well.--Z3465654 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (EST)

hey guys, sorry i havent been putting anything up recently. i moved in to my new place over the weekend but the internet isnt up yet so i havent been able to upload anything. i dont know how much longer until its up, so ill be coming to uni just to use the internet (its where i am now lol). so when did the majority of our content have to be up by? was it friday or sunday? i cant remember. --Z3465654 (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2014 (EST)

i found this really good article. it mainly focuses on the kidneys but there are a couple of lines here and there where it mentions some facts about the rest of the renal system. thought u guys might wanna take a look. i dont know whether full access to the article is normal or whether i only managed it because im using the uni library internet, but if u cant access it just let me know and ill send u the article (i downloaded it haha). --Z3465654 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2014 (EST) oh i also just found this book, it has A LOT of info about the embryology of the renal system, though half the chapters seem to be focused towards abnormalities and defects of the organs http://books.google.com.au/books?id=IKexq6xCRmIC&pg=PA542&lpg=PA542&dq=rotation+of+fetal+kidney&source=bl&ots=0O-4VfybHS&sig=3VeDlTrB9HnJsdYQLP66IKNGPDU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1ocrVPuiIoKUoQSyroEQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=rotation%20of%20fetal%20kidney&f=false --Z3465654 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2014 (EST)

Hey Girls hows the "break" going? :) i was wondering how many abnormalities we should have? 3/4? Also, is it just me or can we not access some of the journals that are free on Pubmed for e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11458035 ?? --Z3465141 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (EST)

Sorry this is way too late but I think 3/4 abnormalities sound good and for references I have just been doing the automated way of the references --Z5030311 (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2014 (EST)

Also at the moment I have done 2 research models, do you think that is enough or shall I do another one? --Z5030311 (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (EST)

---

• Great introduction! Your entire page's contents was introduced well and simple. I'm just wondering if you'd have to include more references to further justify some of the aspects you've mentioned in your explanation of the renal system development
• I noticed the historic findings have been left untouched. This section is in my opinion the trickiest because of the difficulty in finding information out there. My suggestions are to go onto pubmed and use key words like "Renal system development: a historical perspective" and then work from there. You can also adjust years to look at earlier papers from the 1920s and onwards. Also use Mark's historical textbooks on this website as a starting point, it's helpful too to see how ideas in fetal development have changed over the years
• I like how the timeline overview has been simplified. Maybe think of tabulating the findings? You can get the template for doing that off any other group project that has tables by copy and pasting, then just editing in what you need
• I wouldn't add that first like under "Current research models" but if you wanted to do that, maybe think of rewording it. An example could be: "Animal models are ideal to work with when researching renal system development due to their short gestation periods, making the identification of mutations much quicker." Although what you've said about ethics is technically true, the ethics of working with animal models are still lengthy considerations and the fact that our pages are accessed to the public, maybe something like ethics don't need to be mentioned
• Include the years of when the current research findings were discovered. Otherwise, good work on this section. Just proofread over it to fix minor errors
• Great images used throughout
• Maybe think of having some sections more concise rather than wordy by including dot points