Talk:2014 Group Project 7

From Embryology

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
Mark Hill.jpg
  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.
Uploading Images
Mark Hill.jpg 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.

  1. Open the left hand menu item “Toolbox” and click “Upload file” and a new window will open.
  2. Click the button ”Choose file” and navigate to where the image is located on your computer and double click the file.
  3. The window will now show the file name in the “Source filename” window.
  4. You can then rename the uploaded file in the “Destination filename” window.
    1. Make sure the new name accurately describes the image.
  5. Add a description of the image to the “Summary” window. Note the description must include:
    1. An image name as a section heading.
    2. Any further description of what the image shows.
    3. A subsection labeled “Reference” and under this the original image source, appropriate reference and all copyright information.
    4. 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.

Mark Hill.jpg 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/>

Mark Hill.jpg 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
Group 2014 project edits 24sep.png

--Mark Hill (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2014 (EST) Individual student data for each group has also been analysed.

Student 2014 project edits 24sep.png

--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
  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.

Final Assessment

  • Introduction large block of text with how figure or table to showcase the project topic.
  • Simplification of timeline image was useful modification for project page.
  • Table of events is useful, but generalised and uncited as to origin of data in table.
  • Sub-headings below this table would have been better if matched the major events in your table.
  • Sub-headings 3. cell differentiation and 4. cell death (apoptosis) could have used research figures to also illustrate these concepts.
  • Table - Visible anatomical details is well organised and relates to human fetal development.
  • Table - Historical Research and Findings seems out of place as it does not relate to fetal neural development. It would have been better to include the historical findings on fetal neural development.
  • Current Research- you have selected a few useful studies to include in your project, though none are illustrated, just text. Schizophrenia study appears to be postnatal and not directly related to topic. I understand that sexual dimorphism is part of prenatal development, but you have not identified this on your page.
  • Abnormalities - Neural Tube Defects are an embryonic abnormality, not fetal and should not have been included here.
  • No glossary of terms or acronyms used on your project page.
  • No closing summary.


Peer Reviews


Good introduction but I would move what happens in the embryonic development to the “development” section. Also, don’t forget any references and in-text citations for this section. Maybe add more on what the page is about and what the readers should be expecting. Nonetheless, it gives a good background of the key organs in this system. The diagram for the timeline of development is quite complex. Try to explain what is happening in this diagram within the “development” section. For example, maybe try to have the same headings (cell multiplication, cell migration, etc.) as the diagram for the “development” subheadings. Or, if you’re willing, make a timeline of your own. At least, you can make a simpler diagram where only relevant information is included. Good job on the “Visible Anatomical Details” table.

On current findings, good choice on research articles. They’re very relevant to the topic and to the project as well. Maybe try to add some images if possible. Also, try to add some dates or anything to show how recent these studies are. There is a bit of imbalance in terms of the amount of content for each study but nonetheless, this section was written well. Good job! As for “abnormalities”, this section was done well. Each disease was written with lots of detail but very concisely. I do suggest adding more images that show the clinical manifestation of each disease. Also, don’t just focus on the manifestations of each defects. Try to look for current treatments or techniques on managing the abnormality. Also, maybe look for more references.

On historic findings, where is it? 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”.

I’ve check all the images and there are no issues with them in terms of copyright. I can see that you tried to add captions to each photo, which is good but you can format the image in a way so that the caption is framed with the photo. Check out the [Image Formatting] guide to do this. Overall, this page is very detailed and written very well. Just try to edit the page and make it look cleaner.


This project page is very nicely organised with the group clearly specifying what aspect of neural development they are covering, being the CNS. The use of headings and subheadings is done very neatly, however sections 1.1-1.5 could be subheadings for the larger title ‘system development’. The key points have been clearly described but there is no referencing throughout the ‘Introduction’, ‘Brain development’ and ‘Abnormalities’ sections. Most key points have at least some information on them which is good for this stage of the project; however some of the headings without could use some more work.

The choice of content is highly appropriate and the use of diagrams and pictures help show the groups understanding of the project thus far. I particularly like the use of subheadings in this project as they make the page look neater and organised. The image showing the timeline of fetal neural development is good however perhaps it would be better to draw or make a timeline on the computer in order to show better understanding of the time course of fetal development. Most images that have been uploaded are also well referenced and when clicking onto them, it takes the reader to a page that has more information related to the image. The table to describe anatomical details is also done well and is important that such a key point is mentioned seeing as this is an anatomy course.

I also really like how the ‘Current research, models and findings’ section is split into ‘Current research’ and ‘Future Research’, however it seems future research needs to be further looked into. The ‘Abnormalities’ section is done very well, with multiple abnormalities listed with images used to show each one. The bolding of several key words is seen and is helpful in showing understanding of some of the key points. There are also no historic findings so try and find some information on that.

Referencing is correctly done with most references being in one main section at the end, and ordered correctly. In-cite referencing is also done correctly. All images are correctly referenced with copyright information present and the student image template. I also like the way the current research findings sources have been referenced with the use of dot points assisting learning by not just presenting to the reader as a blob of information.

Overall, well done group 7! Keep up the great work!


The content looks well organized. The introduction could use a bit of work; it does a good job of introducing the CNS, but it should also mention all the other sections this page will cover regarding the topic. You might want to get rid of the using bold for brain and spinal cord, it just makes it look a little weird. Otherwise, a good embryonic developmental background is provided, it’s a good way to set the stage for when fetal development will commence from.

The information is organized well, no chunky slabs of texts. But the use of dot points is a bit extensive; almost every section of the page has dot points or makes up the complete majority of the info presented. You might want to present some of it in paragraph form e.g. the abnormalities part, as that section can still be kept quite short and not be packed with text. As long as you mention what it is, how you get it/how it forms, some statistics and use a picture, the section can be still visually appealing. The images are captioned ok, but there is a better way of doing it. In the command to input the image, continue the command with: |thumb|’whatever you want to write’], and the section in the apostrophes will be the caption under the picture (go into edit mode on another project page for a better idea, I might not have explained well).

The use of the table is well done, makes all that info easily presentable, though I see the meninges development still needs to be done. The current research models and findings looks kind of messy with just the referenced PubMed article there. It might look better if you had the article name written in bold and a couple sentences underneath each to describe what the article was trying to achieve, like what has been done under current research. A couple pictures may be included to make it all more visually appealing and colourful.

Overall, this was done well. You have a good amount of information, just try not to present it all in dot points. Make sure all your info is referenced in text, will all references displayed at the bottom of the page. Another note, try to organise your pictures in different areas of the page as well, as they are all currently on the left hand side.


This group page shows a good amount of work completed however there are quite a few sections that clearly still need some more info. A good introduction to the neural development and a accurate description of what will be covered. Although it seems to be missing the in text citations. The section on ‘development during fetal period’ is presented clearly and structured really well. The info is not too overwhelming and the use of dot points for this section is great as neural development is quite complex. There’s a good identification of images and the use of in text citations. The brain development section is written really well with enough detail and it’s nice to see a table for the timeline of changes during each week. It does however seem to be a bit short, maybe that’s because it’s all in dot point form. It would be useful if the ‘brain, spinal cord and meninges development’ were combined under one heading, this might be a better way to structure it. Otherwise just keep each section separate but format the info into paragraph form. In the ‘current research’ section a thorough amount of info was provided. It seems as though it hasn’t been finished and more info will be added later that will be great. The abnormalities content is sufficient and well organised. Just consider using more in text citations in this section, add some more images and complete all the sub headings.

Finally a good effort in this project page, it is structured well and the info provided is easy to understand. However it needs some more research and content to fill all the sub headings in order for it to be finished. Some suggestions that may be considered include; having all the references under one main heading at the end of the page. The use of more in text citations in some of the paragraphs throughout the whole page would be effective. There is an adequately amount of images already shown, so maybe the use of videos or drawings would also be good especially in the abnormalities section and current research. The key is to focus on filing the info and then just making a few adjustments in terms of formatting. Otherwise the page is set out well , just needs a little more work. The page will look really great once completed. Good luck :).


This page is organized well, all the headings and subheadings are thought through. Although, I’m unsure while the sections brain and spinal cord are in bold? The development during fetal period image lacks the necessary “student template” at the bottom of the description summary and I was unable to open the link Otherwise, all the other images uploaded on the page look really good and are referenced correctly.

The table under the section brain development is very brief, and expansions on the content will allow for a better understanding of the content. Adding images to appear after the table will also add to the appearance of the page and give it a cleaner look.

The spinal cord and menegies development have been left untouched and the current research models have no content, just pubmed references. I understand the current research models are probably the hardest part of the assignment, but the content appears to be quite good, the formatting of the section could be improved by following the structure Mark uses. You could look at the other group projects as examples.

In regards to referencing, there are no in-text citations for the first two subheadings. I would also like to recommend just adding a final list of references at the bottom of the page, as it looks much neater.

The abnormalities section is done well. But try to minimise the use of dot points as this section lacks any structured paragraphs. It use of images are great, although there is an image that appear to have been removed and as a result, there is a broken link.

Overall, great job so far!


This is a really good project so far. The introduction is really well done and I especially like that you have included a diagrams in it. The brain development is good, however I’m not completely sure about the dot points. It would look better if they were not there.

Well done with the images that you have got there they all appear to be well described and referenced when you click on them. Only problem with the images is that there is a lack of them. It appears that there is an imbalance between written information and images tipping in favor of the information. I think it would be a good idea to add some more images to elicit more excitement in the page. Student images are a good idea as they highlight that it is a student project and make it more interesting for the viewer.

The current research models and findings shouldn’t be left like it is at the moment. You will need to go into more detail and reference properly. While on referencing it is important that you put all your references at the bottom of the page. You only have 20 at the bottom at the moment and it is clear that you have used many more than twenty. Also you need to add in text citations so that we know exactly where you have got your information from.

The current research part is good with plenty of information, but again look at adding more images to make it a bit more interesting. There are obviously some parts that you need to finish off which I’m sure your aware of.

Overall it is a really good project with the potential to be excellent because of the amount of effort you have put into the research. Just make sure you change your references so that they are all down the bottom and have in text citations, add more images and maybe student images as well to make your page more presentable. Very well done so far and good luck with finishing the project off.


In this review I intend to highlight the merits of your project and suggest some areas for improvement in light of the marking criterial provided.

The introduction provides the perfect preface for your project, it serves to summarise the topic and highlight the areas that you will be addressing.

In the first section you have discussed fetal development of the neural system in great detail. I feel that a lot of research has gone into the collection and presentation of this date. The diagrams have been appropriately selected. Each image really ties in with the content and helps explain that stage development; I particularly like the diagram summarising the cell migration. In addition the images are well referenced. In the link you provide a brief description of the image and effectively explain the meaning of all the abbreviations.

The topics addressed under the heading of current seem quite interesting. The project really succeeds in providing insight into this new MIR technology, a technology that will certainly allow us to build on current knowledge of fetal neural development. I see that the heading of future research has not been completed. However I feel that this is a very interesting sub heading and shows a clear aspiration to go beyond the scope of the course.

A number of abnormalities have been addressed. I only suggest that you ensure that each of these subheading is addressed for each abnormality. Description; Epidemiology; Cause and possible Treatments, an image would be good too.

All the content on this page is well written. I feel that all the subheadings are relevant, though some sections are not complete. The only major drawback of your project is that, at this point the area of historic findings has not been addressed at all. Make sure you address this area.


I believe the introduction of this page is excellent. A good choice of appropriate headings and subheadings. The addition of images would just add to the presentation of the introduction.

The development section of this page is excellent! There is very informative, easy to follow and well-presented. There is clear evidence of significant scientific research and correct referencing. The choice and use of graphs and diagrams is excellent and does indeed add to the overall understanding of this section. I do believe, however, that this section could be included with the use of more tables? (Eg. The first four bolded subheadings)- but this is only a suggestion. Excellent nevertheless. Really enjoyed the ‘Visible anatomical details’ table.

The current research section is a bit lacking in detail and appropriate choice of pictures. There is a good choice of subheadings and references though. The first included study is excellent though and should serve as a benchmark for the other remaining studies.

The historic findings section is not presented on the page yet? I cant seem to find this section on your page.

The abnormalities section is excellent, well presented and well researched. There is a very good use of subheadings and an excellent varying amount of abnormalities/defects included. The use of dot-points is effective, as well as, the accompanying pictures- really aids in understanding. This section, however, needs to be correctly referenced and cited. The other remaining abnormalities should be finalised (although I believe not all of the abnormalities should be discussed in great detail!). Great work, overall.


Overall, the project contains a decent amount of content as it is, split up into appropriate subheadings, considering the large scope of the nervous system. The introduction provides a succinct description of the CNS, however including an outline of what topics the page intends to cover would be good to orient a reader that approaches the page for the first time. The descriptions of the brain and spinal cord are well-written, however require in-text citations and some words need not be capitalised e.g midbrain, hypothalamus. These can be easily fixed with proof-reading and further editing.

The use of an image to illustrate fetal development was a very good idea; although the diagram is itself seems complicated, it can be explained well with the accompanying text beneath. The segmentation of the timeline into 4 different parts made it easier to follow, although I would consider placing the images on the right hand side of the page to reduce the vertical length of the page and the scrolling required to navigate through it. The section on ‘brain development’ contained some relevant information, formatted in dot points which improves readability, however in-text citations are needed to allow the reader to source the information if required. The use of the table in this part was effective also; it was concise and straight to the point.

Although the brain development section was very well detailed, there was no information in the spinal cord and meninges sections; with further research, these need to be evened out, along with the current findings section which is just references at this stage, but still a good start to finding sources of information. The section on current research is well-detailed and contains a lot of information too, which is good to see. Fiinally, I thought the section on abnormalities was very well done, using subheadings to segment the content. The use of dot points allowed the information to be easily read off the page, and use of images to accompany them helped the reader to visualise the conditions. There is one image however that has been incorrectly uploaded; consulting Dr Hill’s Wiki help page can remedy this. Also, the placement of all references under one list at the end of the page was effective in neatening it up, that was very well done too.

Overall, the project’s content has been well-researched and there is evidence of good teamwork and communication. Perhaps the use of some student-drawn images and inclusion of a relevant video may be areas of improvement.


This project is coming along quite nicely! The introduction is very thorough and provides a really sound basis for the topics which you covered. I enjoyed the use of diagrams in your introduction- although I admit your flow diagram was very scary! I think you should be a bit more clear in your timeline of the human neural development – it took me a moment to figure out what was happening, so it may be a better idea to put all this information into a table.

The images that you have used are great as they are relevant and provide interest to your project page. The referencing on them appears consistent and there doesn’t appear to be any copyright issues- so I think you should include a few more diagrams, just to make your message even clearer.

The current research models could do with some reformatting. I don’t think it is a good idea to put the references at the start, and secondly it seems like your work is not so well structured. I think if you included some bullet points in your work, it would greatly aid the clarity. The abnormalities is off to a good start, I see that it is well researched but you want to consider adding some more pictures or diagrams just to make it a bit more visually appealing. Overall this project is off to a good start, I think it may be a good idea to leave all your references until the end just to make your work more cohesive.


Very good introduction! Very informative and gives a great jist as to what the project will be about. The developmental timeline is very well done and easy to comprehend and understand. You should add a lot more pictures in general to the whole page, there’s a lot of information and is organised nicely. I feel the usage of dot points is a bit excessive, maybe try to organise some of the information into paragraphs to make it match the wiki page style. The references aren’t organised at the bottom of the page yet; maybe something for the group to start when the page is unlocked for editing? Some parts of the page still do need a lot of information still to be added. I think you could go more into detail with the brain development; maybe you could make sub sections for development of the cerebrum, cerebellum, brain stem etc to add more information. I’ve noticed that there is an image that hasn’t been uploaded correctly; have a look at the page on how to upload pictures, I’ve found that using Mark’s tutorial has been really helpful when I was doing my page. Hope this helped!


Introduction is a bit too focussed on anatomical division of brain and spinal cord, doesn’t address current/historical research or abnormalities. Change the word “website” to page or project. The embryonic development is explained well and should have its own subheading. Referencing is required for the whole of the introduction, Brain development and abnormalities sections. The Sections 1.1 through to 1.5 could be subheadings under the “system development” main heading.

Image showing fetal development timeline is quite overly complex and captioning/referencing is required. Additional explanation of the timeline image narrowing the viewer’s focus onto key fetal development processes will provide greater clarity allowing them to relate the image to surrounding content. The 3 images included in the project also are absent of referencing/captions present on the project page, though info after clicking on the image is great. Brain development information is in-depth and well presented(great use of table), the Spinal Cord and Meninges section have content yet to be added. There is an unusual caption [11] at the end of brain development which should be removed. Like the focus on anatomical structures.

There is an absence of historical research which could be found searching on Pub Med for studies completed before a certain date(1970 for example). Current Research content is sufficient. Removal of the different types of dot-points, with addition of images would make the section more attractive.Abnormalities content is great for sections covered, removal of surplus abnormalities and “500px” at the bottom of the section is need unless they are still to be added to.


The page had plenty of detail in some of the sections especially in the ‘Abnormalities’ section. This section in particular could benefit from the use of in text citation to support the text and some images to give a visual representation of the information. It is clear that it is not yet finished so it when the rest of the abnormalities are completed I think that this could be a strong point of your page.

The ‘Current Research Models and Findings’ section has a good selection of articles but some subheadings need to be explained (e.g. ‘Future Research’). If possible, it might be beneficial to include some images break up this section but the summaries of most subheadings were very good. I think this page needs a ‘Historic Findings’ heading with the relevant information. A good place to start is to look under the ‘Historic Embryo’ tab for information.

Overall this page contained some good information but still needs some work. Focus on including a ‘Historic Findings’ subheading and in text citations to support your text.


Introduction is well informed and written. Maybe write a bit more about what the page is about rather than just a background on the central nervous system. I suggest maybe putting up an image to aid the text. In text citations are missing. Development during fetal period has great images to aid the information written so well done. Although I suggest not using bullet points a lot. Brain development section has a very good table and an image. Spinal cord development section needs more information. Meninges development section is empty so research needs to be done as soon as possible. Current models and findings section just has references so do start to write on what those research articles say. Current research is well informed but images will help aid the information. Future research is blank which needs to be filled up with information. Abnormalities section is quite good as the image and information relate to each other and the images help aid the information. A bit incomplete towards the end which you should write up on. Overall, some of the images are a bit too complex so maybe try hand drawing some images in a simplified manner. All the references would look more professional and neat if it was at the end of the page in a bulk. Also historic findings section is missing so suggest you add that if possible. Good so far just missing bits and pieces of information which I am sure you can write up on within a week. Good luck!


The introduction is great as it mentions the features of the neural system, their anatomical positions and highlights the key events in the embryonic and fetal stages of development. The last paragraph of the introduction clearly addresses how the page will be divided and what the viewers are to expect which is good. The content under all subheadings are relating to the key topic and are formatted appropriately. I really like the image used under the subheading ‘Development during fetal period’ as it presents a diagrammatic representation of the content mentioned. The use of a table to briefly describe the events that occur at certain periods of fetal development is really helpful in grasping the main details. Some information is missing such as in ‘spinal cord development’, ‘Meninges development’, ‘future research’ and some ‘abnormalities’. This should be added right away. There are no historic findings which is great to have on your page for viewer’s fascination into the group project. Members could search on pubmed about the neural system and view dates on the side that may contain key findings. Also a glossary list should be added to help viewers understand the content more instead of just being confused at some sections.

In terms of images, there are still many potential spaces for images such as under ‘introduction’, ‘current research’ and some ‘abnormalities’. The images used under ‘Development during fetal period’ are great and relate to the content. All images have correct description, referencing, copyright issues and ‘student template’, which shows that members of the group have followed correct ‘uploading image’ procedures. The images however need a caption to describe what the image is showing.

There needs to be more use of incite referencing such as in the ‘introduction’, ‘brain development’ and ‘abnormalities’. There is a huge list of references under ‘current research models and findings’ which need to be placed all under one ‘references subheading’; similarly to any other reference list on the page. References 7 and 8 are the same reference under the ‘references’ subheading and need to be combined into one number. Overall, this is a good project and if the group makes edits based on the peer-reviews received, this could enhance their project.


Group 7 has definitely put in a lot of effort into the project however there are some points for improvement I’d like to suggest. The introduction is quite succinct and short which is good however I felt some more could be detailed about what the project was about and what aspects of development were being focused on. I would also suggest having a timeline either in dot-point form or as a table to summarise the changes that occur during fetal development of each of the organs. Though this was done with the visible anatomical details table, it would be a good idea to include some more information on function or implications of the stages of development. I think overall a good variety of images and diagrams have been used to support the text however the structure and format of the text needs to be edited and made more consistent between the headings. With the current research findings heading, the layout is a bit confusing and hard to follow and the references listed here seem out of place. I would suggest finding at least 2-3 recent research papers and under each one, summarise the purpose of the study, the out come and then the implications. This will give a lot more meaning and purpose to the text and be an interesting read. I am not really sure if the future research subheading is necessary, but if you have found good sources of proposed research plans then it would be a good idea to include it. The abnormalities section still needs to be completed, but from whatever work has been done, I think the information was informative and well written. There is an issue with the ‘facial expressions associated with fetal alcohol syndrome’ picture which can be sorted out by reformatting. Overall, the referencing was done well and most were listed under an exclusive references heading which is great. Bit of work still needs to be done but other than that, great job!


The introduction is helpful in introducing the CNS. However the introduction is a good opportunity to outline what the page will be focusing on about the CNS, for example that it is focusing on fetal development. More could be added to the introduction for it mention briefly other things like recent findings, historic findings and fetal development introduction. In the content box ‘Brain’ and ‘Spinal Cord are in bold, it would be good to make it normal. Most of the key topics were addressed on your page. However you guys should add historic findings if you get time. It is part of the criteria and it would be good for your page. The table under Brain development is really good and it is simple and easy to follow. If it were possible, if appropriate images were put into the table it would make the table really good. You guys have a lot of different articles for research models and findings, but as you are probably already going to do, would be good to explain each of them. Some sections are empty like the ‘Meninges Development’ which I’m sure you guys will get too before the dead line.

There was a good use of diagrams. The first diagram is particularly useful. It is a good pictorial representation of the CNS development. It is a good medium to try explaining it effectively to peers. In the ‘Brain Development section (-) was used to demarcate points. And in the ‘Development during fetal period’ dot points where used instead. It might be a good idea to use the dot points throughout the page for consistency. It is evident that you guys have done a considerable amount of information. Some more research wouldn’t hurt so that you guys can go beyond normal teaching level descriptions. Different teaching tools for peers might be a good idea, or some sort of way to make the page more interactive or captivating. For example hand drawn diagrams or video links. The references are done well but there are some references throughout the page which can be added to the main reference section. Overall it was good project guys all the best.


Good use of bullet points and images to clearly show the stages that occur during development. Table is effective at showing the visible anatomical details at different weeks. More work needs to be done on the spinal cord development and meninges development sections. The references in the current research models and findings need to be expanded or put into the references section at the end.


This project has a great introduction and overview of the brain and spinal cord anatomy. The first image is eye catching however I find it hard to follow and it seems like there is too much information on it. Perhaps it would be better positioned further down in the report after more neural developmental stages have been explained. The timeline section is clear and to the point. There is an excellent use of images to support the information. The fluorescent stained images make the ventricular, subventricular and other cortical layers clear and easy to understand. The information under the brain development section is simple and effective. However there are some terms mentioned that are not explained in enough detail like the specific layering of the cortex. It is a complicated migration process that deserves some more research. It is good that the student has explained gyration and sulcation in this section.

This project is clearly still in progress however the information in the first section of the wiki page indicates a very promising final product. The spinal cord and meninges development section still needs to be written up. If it follows along the course of the brain development section, it will be flawless. The current research models and finding section reveals an in-depth understanding of complex ideas. However for a student embryology wiki page, there is too much detail. If the student wants to illustrate a complicated research finding, images or tables of the results found from this research would help convey the message to the student. A table would help summarise the results in the first current research description, particularly for the results gathered from the different parts of the brain.

The final part of this report on abnormalities is unfinished however the bulk of the information presented already is very good. The images supporting the abnormality are excellent and important for keeping the student reading this page engaged. However there are a few spelling and grammar errors in the neural tube defects section: “which affect the either the brain”, “the openings remain which leas”. There is still room for more research and information on other neural development abnormalities and the subheadings the student has incorporated indicates their intention of adding more information. This report has excellent reference formatting and citation throughout the page. The tables and images are referenced correctly and the long list at the end is very neat.


Your group's project page has a good introduction with a description entailing what your page is about and the information your page covers.

There is a very good layout, with a combination of text, tables, dot points and images- well done! Some of the images however a slightly small (Images under Brain development) or too big (image under development during fetal period) and need to be reformatted.

Whilst your group mentioned that the neural tube differentiates into the proencephalon (forebrain), the mesencephalon (midbrain) and the rhombencephalon (hindbrain, there was no mention of the different brain flexures in your project. This an important aspect of brain development as it divides the three primary vesicles into 5 secondary primary vesicles (which you did mention) and how the cephalic flexure separates the brain from the spinal cord.

The images use in your project are excellent and provide a visual to the information that you describe. However, there are many images from your group project that are from the lecture notes, perhaps try and mix up your selection to incorporate images from other sources such as research articles on pubmed. There also appears to be an image deleted under the Abnormalites, and this formatting would need to be fixed up, but this is just a small thing.

Well done for your extensive reference list that you have. Although it is split in respective parts of your project, under different headings, don't forget to make it into one before the final submission.


Nice introduction. Short and to the point

Images are well used but there needs to be more. content is too text heavy so far. even if you recreate some images yourself, it would help the page greatly

Needs more references for the text heavy sections, even if you are reusing the same reference, we need to see where the information came from. References also need to be collated in one spot. look at other groups content and copy their style and use it to declutter your page.

There are sections missing content like spinal cord, meninges and abnormalities. Make sure to go through all your content to not miss these parts by submission.

Some information on the current research rather than just citing the research needs to be done. reduce the reference and add more info.

Good work, some minor formatting and will look great.


At this stage this project seems to be put together very well. The introduction has a very neat layout and structure, it is well developed and integrates the concepts of the whole page together well. Fetal development section has a fantastic diagram, very relevant and has a great visual appeal and is very helpful form of understanding the concepts being presented. The bullet points are a nice way to break up the page so that it doesn’t appear too clumped, however it may be useful to at times have a little more detail – particularly in the fetal development section. The brain development section has nice formatting with the use of bullet points and then a table. Perhaps at times small paragraphs can also be useful especially when explaining complex processes like the developing brain. The images are well described in this section too. Perhaps another improvement can be the addition of hand drawn images as this is a student page and a simplistic drawing of complex concepts can make things easier to understand for the reader. The current research models section seems to be extensively researched, however shouldn’t be left as it is at them moment- the referencing should be worked on and integrated into the final section of references. Some images may also be of benefit to this section. Abnormalities section is great so far! The final reference section has a good start- although more of the references must be integrated into this section.

The introduction clearly divides the system in two parts and then provides a good brief overview of the CNS, which is relating to the topic as it helps to clearly understand the anatomical component of CNS system. Good brief description of embryonic stage so that readers can understand the later fetal stage. The diagram used is relevant in the introduction section and correctly citied however it could be a bit overwhelming maybe have a brief explanation of it underneath explaining what is happening the right hand bottom corner of it. There is evidence of understanding shown through the timeline of brain development which is shown in various form (table format and diagram). Diagram is labelled correctly and is relevant to chosen topic and it’s clear and simple to understand which is good. Timeline in the table format is well organised and brief with key points provided helping understand the basic of what happens during fetal development. Spinal cord development needs work done for it as well as Meninges Development. There is just heading having a timeline would be a good start and adding a picture or two to it.

There is evidence of research done through the current findings and model headings some good relevant links are shown however a lot are not summarised (just links). For the ones that are the first current research was well summarised others could have added a bit more information about the findings into it. In this section pictures would also be good to help understand and engage readers. Abnormalities section is started off well. There is relevant information of how common it is and good definition with a variety of picture shown besides it. The pictures are correctly labelled and cited and clearly illustrate the abnormality. For the rest there is need of a short summary of the abnormality however in the section there is evidence of research done as a variety of abnormalities have been listed or explained. Referencing is done correctly throughout the page however the links in the research models section could be placed at the bottom of the page once information from them are written.

Overall there is some good use of tables and diagrams. There is a variety of pictures used ranging from simple anatomical diagrams, x-rays and molecular pictures relevant to the topic. There is evidence of research done in certain sections and it is correctly formatted and appropriately set up with relevant headings in logical order. The information is not overwhelming and quite easy to follow. All images are correctly labelled the page is just incomplete in certain section however what is shown so far is relevant shows understanding and is easy to follow.


--Z3418981 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2014 (EST) Hey everyone,

What's everyone's ideas about doing the neural system for our project? there are lots of interesting Neurologic deficits that we could talk about!!!

--Z3419587 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2014 (EST) That's a good idea. Neural system is a complex structure and it should be fun to work on it! Any other ideas?

--Z3374116 (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2014 (EST) I talked to Yas before, sorry couldnt respond faster haha. Agree that Neural system would be interesting to research :p

Do you guys have facebook as well? It might be an additional way to communicate

--Z3422484 (talk) I also agree on this topic being quite interesting as well --Z3418981

--Z3418981 (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2014 (EST) hey guys it's yas! so we each need to choose one of the following: Review the neural system development during the fetal period. Identify current research models and finding. Identify historic findings. Identify abnormalities that can occur in this system during fetal period.

--Z3419587 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2014 (EST) Thanks! This is vivian. Can I do "the review of the neural system development during the fetal period"? Or if anyone wants to do this section?

--Z3374116 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2014 (EST) Hey guys, Can i do historic findings for fetal neutral system development :) - Sean

--Z3419587 (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2014 (EST)I have put some subtitles to give a brief structure to our webpage, feel free to change them if you want!

--Z3418981 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2014 (EST) sure and I'll do the abnormalities - Yas

--Z3419587 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2014 (EST) hey Yas, see if this helps. <pubmed>25007063</pubmed>

--Z3418981 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2014 (EST) Thanks Vivian!! the article is very helpful! and the page looks really good too :)

--Z3374116 (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2014 (EST) Hey guys, I think the last entry from my section will help alot in the Development section for our project :) - Sean


--Z3419587 (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2014 (EST) That's true! thanks Sean :) - vivian

--Z3422484--Z3422484 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2014 (EST) Hey guys, this is a useful article for the abnormalities area


--Z3374116 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (EST) nice one :D How are you guys going with your sections?

--Z3374116 (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2014 (EST) <pubmed>10226791</pubmed> maybe for development

--Z3374116 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2014 (EST)

something which might help us figure out a timeline structure

--Z3374116 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2014 (EST) A textbook which has great information on the development of the CNS during the fetal period

--Z3422484 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2014 (EST) Hey guys i will be adding a few extra research articles to the current research tab

--Z3422484 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2014 (EST) Also is there anything else anyone needs help on as well?

--Z3422484 (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2014 (EST) Forgot to mention that I'll also be adding spinal cord abnormalities

For Historial Research and Findings <pubmed>19339620</pubmed> <pubmed>8005032</pubmed> <pubmed>9311417</pubmed> <pubmed>17848161</pubmed> <pubmed>12768653</pubmed> <pubmed>17060425</pubmed> <pubmed>21042938</pubmed> for brain de

abnormalities <pubmed>12454899</pubmed> <pubmed>25007063</pubmed> <pubmed>16530991</pubmed> <pubmed>7504639</pubmed> <pubmed>19651588</pubmed> <pubmed>25135350</pubmed> <pubmed>25128525</pubmed> <pubmed>24397701</pubmed>

  • Good start on the introduction. Maybe have it used to explicitly state what your entire page will be covering rather than just a background on what the CNS is.
  • You're missing references for the huge chunks of information in the introduction section
  • The image of the timeline of development seems overly complex and I can't tell if you've explained it. If it's not relevant, maybe just come up with your own concise table of what happens during the course of development
  • Maybe think of re-creating some simpler images by hand and uploading them. That way you can choose to focus on what you actually need from the image to show what you're explaining
  • Include the years of when your current findings were discovered
  • For the "abnormalities" section, as there are many, maybe the amount of detail you've included for the first couple of ones isn't needed, but of course, use your own discretion to how much is relevant. Otherwise, the bullet points are a good way to simplify information
  • Collate all your references in the bottom from all the separate sections