Talk:2015 Group Project 1

From Embryology

2015 Projects: Three Person Embryos | Ovarian Hyper-stimulation Syndrome | Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome | Male Infertility | Oncofertility | Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis | Students

Links to Project Discussion Pages: Discussion 1 | Discussion 2 | Discussion 3 | Discussion 4 | Discussion 5 | Discussion 6

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 Science Student Projects
  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.
More Information on Assessment Criteria | Science Student Projects
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

"Plagiarism at UNSW is defined as using the words or ideas of others and passing them off as your own." (extract from UNSW statement on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism)

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.

2015 Group Project Topic - Assisted Reproductive Technology
ART in Australia (2012)

Some Potential Topics

  • Your own selected topic (consult coordinator)
  • oocyte quality
  • spermatozoa quality
  • prenatal genetic diagnosis
  • frozen oocytes
  • in vitro oocyte development
  • assisted hatching
  • cryopreserved ovarian tissue
  • oncofertility
  • 3 person embryos
  • fertility drugs
  • Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)
  • ART for genetic disorders
  • male infertility
  • female infertility

Assisted Reproductive Technology

Journal Searches  
Below are shown some easy methods, with examples, for setting up simple searches of PubMed and other Journal databases. In most cases, you simply need to replace the existing term (embryo) where it appears in Wiki code with your own. Note there may also be additional "Advanced search" options available within these sites.

Students - read the paper first before committing to use/cite the material, to ensure you are using the information correctly and in context.

Reference Links: Embryology Textbooks | Journals | Journal Searches | Reference Tutorial | Copyright | For Students | UNSW Online Textbooks | iBooks | Journals | RSS Feeds | Online | Societies | Online Databases | Historic - Textbooks | Pubmed Most Recent | Category:References

Editing Links: Editing Basics | Images | Tables | Referencing | Journal Searches | Copyright | Font Colours | Virtual Slide Permalink | My Preferences | One Page Wiki Card | Printing | Movies | Language Translation | Student Movies | Using OpenOffice | Internet Browsers | Moodle | Navigation/Contribution | Term Link | Short URLs | 2018 Test Student

Please use the following as a guide:

  • Always when citing, identify reviews separately from original research articles.
  • Always identify copyright conditions allow your reuse of content before uploading.
  • If quoting text verbatim always include in "quotation marks" and reference, or additionally identify in brackets after the excerpt.

External Links Notice - The dynamic nature of the internet may mean that some of these listed links may no longer function. If the link no longer works search the web with the link text or name. Links to any external commercial sites are provided for information purposes only and should never be considered an endorsement. UNSW Embryology is provided as an educational resource with no clinical information or commercial affiliation.

Database Example search Wiki code (note - copy text when in Read mode)
Pubmed (all databases) embryo [ ''embryo'']
Pubmed embryo [ ''embryo'']
Pubmed 5 most recent references[1] <pubmed limit=5>embryo</pubmed>
Pubmed Central embryo [ ''embryo'']
Pubmed Central (images) embryo [ ''embryo'']
PLoS (Public Library of Science) embryo [ ''embryo'']
BioMed Central embryo [ ''embryo'']
BMC Developmental Biology embryo [ ''embryo'']
Biology Open (BiO) embryo [ ''embryo'']
About Journal Searches
The following general information is about the above online databases and journals.

External Links Notice - The dynamic nature of the internet may mean that some of these listed links may no longer function. If the link no longer works search the web with the link text or name. Links to any external commercial sites are provided for information purposes only and should never be considered an endorsement. UNSW Embryology is provided as an educational resource with no clinical information or commercial affiliation.

  • PubMed - comprises more than 24 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
    • PubMed Central (PMC) - is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM).
  • Public Library of Science (PLOS) - is a nonprofit publisher and advocacy organization founded to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.
  • BioMed Central (BMC) - is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher of 291 peer-reviewed open access journals.
    • BMC Developmental Biology - is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the development, growth, differentiation and regeneration of multicellular organisms, including molecular, cellular, tissue, organ and whole organism research.
    • Reproductive Health - is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal focusing on all aspects of human reproduction.
    • Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (RB&E) - aims to act as a forum for the dissemination of results from excellent research in the reproductive sciences. RB&E represents a global platform for reproductive and developmental biologists, reproductive endocrinologists, immunologists, theriogenologists, infertility specialists, obstetricians, gynecologists, andrologists, urogynecologists, specialists in menopause, reproductive tract oncologists, and reproductive epidemiologists.
  • Biology Open (BiO) - is an online-only Open Access journal that publishes peer-reviewed original research across all aspects of the biological sciences, including cell science, developmental biology and experimental biology.
  1. Note the references appear where the code is pasted and will be updated each time the page is loaded, and may occasionally list articles that do not appear directly related to the search topic.

You can paste this template on your own page for easy reference. This current template is also available as a plain page.


Group 1 Criteria Comment
1 The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described. The project has clearly identified the key topic points. Visually interesting presentation and layout.
2 The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area. The overall sub-heading structure is appropriate. “Technical progression” could have been titled better. Though the introduction to the topic points to just mitochondrial transfer, the project covers other transfer formats. Tables are clearly organised with colour coding adding to clarity. The mitochondrial disorder table could have used a better colour than blue in the last column, perhaps orange, like traffic lights. good use of images and video sources.
3 Content is correctly cited and referenced. Citations and referencing are correctly formatted. Though I cant easily determine/discriminate in the text which are papers are reviews and original research.
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. Student diagrams included. Some are very useful in understanding the topic.
5 Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities. Includes current research and findings. I would have liked to have seen more critical assessment of the literature and findings. Not sure why you used BBC sourced material/images instead of scientific literature.
6 Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. Related to embryology (fertilisation, genetics, mitochondrial DNA, prenatal diagnosis).
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. There is some evidence of group discussion and interaction. Some, not all, changes have been incorporated in response to peer feedback.
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. There is little evidence of group discussion and interaction. One high contributor with 2 good other contributors about the same level.
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. Yes. The 2 videos incorporated in the project page relate to the topic and are useful learning tools. Inclusion of legal status was a novel idea, be aware that such information is time sensitive and may change. Glossary was a little short on terms and did not include a list of acronyms used. Some of the image summary information could have contained more information to allow teaching linked to that specific content.
10 Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. Yes.


Total Edits - 407 (most edits in October not earlier) Aug to Sep - 50 relatively equal student distribution.
  • 3251292 - 180
  • 3345331 - 119
  • 3292373 - 109
All 2015 Student Edits 
Group Student Edits
6 5088434 203
1 3251292 180
5 3463890 152
2 3415911 149
3 3460352 133
5 3463667 131
1 3345331 119
1 3292373 109
4 3462297 106
5 5015534 101
6 5020317 94
6 5017878 93
2 3372824 92
2 3374116 82
3 3459224 80
4 3462124 62
4 3463514 39
3 3416054 29
3 3462166 28
4 3462833 8
2 5016784 5
5 5015752 0
This is not an assessment of content or addition/removal.



  • Z77266645 Z77254175 - Please check BBC reuse information and this should be included with your images.
  • Z3251292 - should check their image contributions for copyright. Had e you a record of applying for copyright clearance through CCC Rightslink?

Stem cell presentation

Hi, I have listed some papers which I am interested in doing because it is highly relevant to my own project. But I am more than happy if you post other papers and topics which interest you and we can work on them together and get ready earlier.

PMID 26295456

PMID 26439174

PMID 24837661

PMID 26418893

PMID 24981862

Hey, my pick would be C. Sturgeon et al. Wnt Signaling. purely on ease of doing a review. PMID 24837661. If that suites people. --Z3292373 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2015 (AEDT)

Useful resources

Here is a good source for overview and status of 3 Person IVF.

first ref = [1]

second =[1]


  • discovered in muscle by Kölliker in 1857
  • mitochondria are the "powerhouses" of the cell and the location where respiration occurs at the cellular level.
  • mitochondria contain their own DNA (mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA) that has been originally inherited only from the oocyte (maternal inheritance).
  • The spermatozoa (paternal) mitochondria- energy for fertilization motility but are generally destroyed during the first mitotic cell divisions.
  • This pattern of inheritance has important implications for a variety of mitochondrial associated diseases, usually occurring in tissues requiring lots of energy (muscle, brain).
Electron micrograph of mitochondria.

Eukaryotic mitochondrial genomes

  • double stranded circular DNA (mitoDNA. mtDNA)
  • 1981 complete human sequence (16,569 nucleotides)
    • 37 genes
    • encodes 13 polypeptides involved in oxidative phosphorylation
  • remaining genes transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA)
  • multiple copies within the matrix
  • maternally inherited
  • remainder encoded by nuclear DNA
  • proteins made in cytosol and imported into mitochondria

link to Embryology website Mitochondria


--Mark Hill (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2015 (AEST) OK so just text on your page to date and not yet a thorough coverage of the topic. Animal models, timeline, images, diseases.

--Mark Hill (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2015 (AEST) I think you will have 3 students and therefore will exist as a group.

--Z3251292 (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2015 (AEST) hi all,sorry that I still could not make my way to uni today due to illness. I will definitely be back next week. I have added few sub-headings to the points you guys setup, feel free to change them. BTW, would you like to pick one of the 5 topics for now? and start working on it? or there was some good arrangement already? please let me know.

--Z3292373 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2015 (AEST) Hey, ummm sorry i lead us astray putting up those headings female fertility had been taken so we have to pick another. I put up the list of ones left. My choice would be three parent ivf. So ill do a bit of research and on that now (add some headings)just 'cuase i got some free time, but by all means if you guys would like to do something else that interests you I'm more then happy to change.

--Z3251292 (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2015 (AEST) Hi all, I am good with your choice. let's work on 3 person embryo. i have added few papers I find good on this topic.

--Z3345331 (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2015 (AEDT) Hey, I've fixed the reference and please double check again if you are free.

not sure if youll see this but theres a fantastic review on ethics here


Note to self doing history benifits.


Peer Reviews


This wiki page does well in covering a lot of areas relating to the topic, however the website does not outline the information found/used quite clear enough or to the right extent. The page would benefit largely in focusing much more attention to the mechanics of the process itself and how it physically works. There is lots of information regarding other various aspects relating to the topic, however the fundamentals of the topic are not clearly discussed on the page, and it is not clear what goes on in the process.

The page should also fix up some grammatical and syntax errors. Read through the page carefully and ensure all paragraphs make sense ensuring that the quality of the information portrayed is fully appreciated. To also make the page clearer, some thought should be given to rethinking the order of the subheadings. Having a natural cohesion throughout the page as a whole is important – some subheadings do not fit into place correctly and could be moved around a little bit. Also having linking sentences within paragraphs – involving each subheading with others and the topic as a whole – will make the page much more cohesive.

The page used a good amount of supporting pubmed articles, hwoever more images/media files could be used to break up the concentrated use of text. The video used is relevant and informative – however there is no copyright information.--Z5015534 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2015 (AEDT)


Hi guys! I'll start of by saying that the images and video you have included are excellent and are relevant to your topic of discussion. Also, you have a large number of reliable references which is good to see. However you have yet to include a hand drawn image, which is required for the wiki page. I feel like you could probably eliminate the typed out 'timeline of mitochondrial donation' and instead use this as an opportunity to use a hand drawn image of the timeline. Furthermore, the timeline under 'cystoplasmic transfer' feels a bit awkward and unnecessary. You could probably include this timeline alongside the 'timeline of mitochondrial donation'.

Under the 'Technical Progression' section it would be best to incorporate human embryo, mouse and human models under a sub-sub heading, as at the moment it feels a bit jumbled.

I would also recommend moving the 'Benefits' heading towards the end of the page. It feels odd reading about the benefits of three person embryos before I gain a proper understanding of how they work. Also it might be worth talking about the disadvantages (if there are any) to three person embryos to balance out the 'benefits' section. As has been previously stated, make sure you sort out the copyright information for your video as it would be a shame to lose marks if it was missing. Also, don't forget to add the 'student template' to the 'Swapping mitochondrial DNA mammalian oocytes' image as it is currently absent.


The entire project is presented simplistically and all the content is relevant and easy to understand. Majority of the flaws I found were based around poor grammar and syntax which could be fixed up with some editing. Below is a more detailed breakdown of some of the things you could fix.

Firstly, I liked that the introduction was brief and concise and gives the reader a basic understanding of the topic of three person embryo. The video was also informative and provided some background information around the topic. I was informed that mitochondrial DNA was the major factor concerning this topic however there was a lack of information about its importance to the body so a short summary could be included along with some examples of diseases it could cause.

Also, the use of a timeline to present the history is a great idea and I think it could be improved and would look more aesthetically pleasing if it were to be placed into a table. I also think the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s label could be removed to make it look less clustered since they aren’t particularly necessary.

Some information under the heading ‘Technical Progression’ has yet to be filled in but from what is there I’d like to suggest exchanging the bullet points for numbering instead for the information under ‘Pronuclear transfer’ and ‘Polar body transfer’ since they sounded like sequence steps as opposed to separate points.

Finally, I found the layout of the table under the heading ‘Legal status’ to be very well put together. There are however some countries placed under the incorrect continents and I found that the order was easily changed and mixed up. I also noticed that several of the countries were linked to the same sources which made the information very unspecific. Instead of just links I think a few sentences explaining the legislation would be more informative.


I liked how you guys started the introduction and provides partially a brief overview of what your project is about. But I believe it is not enough to allow the audience an insight to your project page. This is something that needs to be worked on and maybe add some images also. However, the choice of short video used in the introduction is great. This is definitely a benefit for your page as it will reinforce the information you have been trying to get across. Like I mentioned, one thing you could work on is adding images and explaining the content in more depth. There is great amount of reference at the end of the page in the reference list which is fantastic!, however there is no in- text referencing in each section such as introduction or in some of the parts of the “Technical Progression” like “Cytoplasmic transfer” or “Spindle-chromosome transfer”. Having in-text referencing will allow the audience to know exactly where the information was read from and for the interest of the audience can read that specific paper in detail.

I also noticed that there are no information for “Benefits” and “Legal Status” or there is limited information for such headings like “Ethics”. I’m assuming you didn’t get the chance to upload information there or you haven’t had the time. This is something you need to work on so that the audience has some note of what this page is about. Also you need to change the format of the page for example it is to move the 'Benefits' heading towards the end of the page after the audience gained a good level of understanding of the project. You included some great images but be careful with copyright as I didn’t see it. But also consider some more images, tables, diagrams as well as hand drawn images in some sections, to make it more inviting and not overwhelming with just content. I do appreciate that the section of “Technical Progression” is subdivided into “Human Model”, timeline” and etc. But maybe consider adding in the current research, historic research, limitations and disadvantages to ensure that you can get all the marks possible by addressing all the key concepts. The timeline is a great idea that outlines the significant progresses and in turn helps put major events into perspective, making it more effective for students to study and understand.

Well done on making the “Glossary” at the end. This is exactly what I would have expected to see and I used it while I was reading through your page. Also it is great to see the table in the “Prohibited” section but I would suggest you to write some sentences explaining the legislation rather than just pasting the links.

Overall, this project page has room for improvement by giving certain sections of the page the attention they deserve. Images are imperative in allowing a balance between text and the image itself. Diagrams, tables and animations can sometimes be refreshing, and less overwhelming to see them among paragraphs of content. Try and work on time management, or set a group deadline that everyone has to meet so that all the information can be well up before the due date so your group can have time to edit and add images and play around with the page comfortably. Goodluck!


It would be nice if the history section could start earlier in time e.g. who came up with the idea of 3 person embryos. It kind of feels as though 3 person embryos popped out of nowhere. This is just a small nuance but the first sentence in “Hereditary mitochondrial Disease” doesn't really make sense. It sounds incomplete. I think you have too many timelines going on in your page and it makes it a bit confusing. There is one under “History” and another timeline in “technical progression”. I understand they may be timelines for different things, but it’s all too much history. Maybe the “technical progression” timeline could be simplified into a paragraph?

Some sections have too many subsections e.g. “technical progression”, and this makes the section messy and hard to read. It is however good for the table of contents though as it makes it easier to specify what you want to read on the page so my suggestion would be to keep some subheading but cut down a bit. You guys are listing papers to read too often. People want to have the information summarized for them on a wiki page, not have to outsource all the information themselves. It’s too time consuming and if they wanted to read a bunch of articles, they would go on PubMed themselves. However, I do like that some articles have been listed but maybe cut it down to one or two great ones instead of 4-5 etc.

I really like the table under the subheading “prohibited”, however, it would be nice to have a little summary next to the links about what each countries stance is, because again it’s too time consuming to have to read all those links. I also think some sections need a lot more work e.g. “ethics” and “benefits” and some more words could be added to the glossary. For example, a definition of what the word gamete mean would be good as, whilst we may know what it means, other people who view your page may not.

I really likes the images you used in “technical” progression. They were easy to understand and simplified the text a lot. It would be good however to add a few more images, perhaps to “history”. Some hand-drawn ones would be good. You've got a good amount of references in there, just maybe add a few more. This indicates that you have done significant research and they appear to be correctly cited. The key points of your topic are clearly described and I feel as though your intro., whilst short, really opens up the topic well. Your page relates well to the learning aims of embryology.

To conclude, I think you've got a great framework and some really good information in there. Just makes sure your page doesn't look too busy and is easy to read. A little bit more work needs to be done in some of the sections and a bit more technical touch ups and you should be good!


Your group’s topic looks very interesting! You have addressed the key points of your topic, and the placement of the video gives the reader a great overview of your project.


• Information has been organised well most of the time. Good use of bullet points and subheadings.

• The table under “Prohibitions” is a great way of summarising information, and it was easy to read.

• I like the addition of a glossary, however, more terms could be added here as a lot of jargon has been used in your text.

• Cytoplasmic transfer images were great as they aided the text well. These images could be re-sized as some of the text is blurry.


• Be mindful of spelling and capitalisation, e.g. “Hereditary Mitochondrial Disease” rather than “Hereditory mitochndrial Disease.”

• In terms of formatting, more spacing between major headings will make reading the page easier and will allow your information to flow.

• I recommend adopting a set formatting scheme for each section: i.e. make sure that the subheadings are all the same size, that they are in bold/italic (if that is what you intended).

• Some references and PMIDs are placed throughout the page. These should all be under your References heading at the end of the page.

• Information is missing under certain headings, e.g. “Mitochondria Linked Infertility.” I’m assuming that information from the two links provided will be summarised for the final submission.

• Hand drawn image is absent – maybe you could hand draw one of your timelines? (Seeing that both of them currently take the same format/structure).

Great job so far!


Thus far, I think this page has a good layout to be a successful page on Three Person Embryos. The headings and subheadings are relevant and show that you have conducted literature searches to deduce what information needs to be covered. I suggest moving “Benefits” below “Technical Progression” as it is important for the reader to understand the process of three person embryos, before learning its advantages. You could also add information about disadvantages and controversial issues.

On a positive note, I am impressed with the way you have set up headings under “Technical Progression”. The consistency of discussing a model and current research provides a systematic approach to the viewing of your page, making it easy to understand. Delving further in each of these subheadings would provide a greater understanding of the current technologies available, such as including limitations and advantages, and statistics of their success rates. The timeline under “Cytoplasmic Transfer” could probably be incorporated with the timeline under “History” to equalize the amount of content under each heading.

The content under each heading still needs work in terms of editing and elaboration. There are quite a lot of grammatical and spelling errors such as “Timeline of Mitocondrial Donation” (missing an ‘h’ in mitochondrial), and some sentences aren’t finished. Proofreading would be key to making the information more understandable and effective to the reader. Information seems to be lacking under a few headings especially “Benefits”, “Hereditary Mitochondrial Disease”, “Mitochondria linked Infertility” and “Other approaches”. To make it a bit easier for yourselves, you may want to consider using a table, flow chart for pathogenesis of the disease, and a detailed diagram of the relevant heading. You have provided a table to explain the "Prohibited Section" however a very short description/summary of each source in the table would be very helpful.

I also noticed you have not included many images, videos or tables. These visual aids really help the reader to understand the content in front of them, and also keep their interest in the topic so it imperative to focus on them as much as the content.

The references have all been cited correctly and have shown you have performed adequate research to cover the important information for this topic. As you add more information, more references should be present within the body of your page.

Overall, I think this page has a really good framework for further information to be added. With more editing, content and diagrams, you are sure to produce a wonderful Wiki page.


Your project instills a great first impression on a visitor to the page! It is a well designed webpage that doesn’t come across as overwhelming and too wordy encouraging and drawing the reader to explore your page. Your choice of content is relevant and provides a good understanding of the topic so far. The introduction is nice and succinct, explaining easily and clearly what the topic is about with a great video that complements the introduction. Together they give the reader good background information on the topic, and are taught in a way that’s easy for someone with no prior knowledge on the topic or in embryology in general to understand.

Furthermore, the timelines you provided, the ethics section and the table on the legal status of the technique is a good way of showing how far the concept has come and good at placing the technique in the context of how it has been translated into modern society. I really like that you have included animal models in explaining the various techniques, provided the current research available, and included further reading. This is very relevant and interesting for other embryology students and researchers who visit your page! The diagrams you have already chosen are very appropriate and explain the technique clearly to visual learners and are very engaging.

In improving on your page I think the main focus is to elaborate on some key points further and add a few more diagrams and pictures so you can maintain a perfect balance of words and images and the engaging layout you already have begun. For example, maybe for the section “hereditary mitochondrial disease” you can talk about the type of hereditary diseases there are. Also, some of your wording and grammar need further editing so make sure you go through and reread your work.

Other things you should edit include, adding a reference to your introductory paragraph and maybe clarifying that three person embryos are now legal in the UK since your video says “its on the threshold of acceptance”. Also check your copyright on some of the images such as the one that says “Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking”, I am not sure if this means you are allowed to use it so just clarify this.

Overall, you have great progress on your page so far, it has a great teaching element to it and shows extensive research and citing into the project!


It’s great to begin with a introductory video which defines your topic. I do suggest finding a reference for the first paragraph for the introduction. Besides that, references have been cited correctly and shows that you have conducted extensive research, but remember to reference as you add information ( [##] ). I think you guys did a great job with the heading and subheadings; it shows us that you have done extensive literature research, and have came to a conclusion as to what information was relevant. Just a grammatical error made in “Timeline of Mitocondrial Donation” which is missing a H in mitochonidral. I suggest proof reading all the text before uploading! This will make it easier for the audience to understand and also for yourself! As to the “Benefit” heading, I think it will be a good idea to add information and case studies on disadvantages towards three person embryos.

Nice to see that you guys have included a timeline, this shows the progress made throughout the years. But I think there is still information that can be added into this area; for example: different possible approaches or more controversial issues that has emerged. “Technical Progression” is an impressive choice of heading; I found it very interesting to read. The cytoplasmic transfer images used were great! They were very easy to understand. The “Timeline” under “Cytoplasmic transfer” could be merged with the history timeline heading above.

Overall, I think more information and content needs to be added under all the headings and subheadings. To make it easier for the audience to read, I suggest adding detailed images, tables and flowcharts. It will be more eye-catching for readers and will keep them interested. I see that you guys have a table under “Prohibited Section” however that just leads to another link, rather than having the link there; I think it would be a great improvement if there is a short summary of all the sources found.

I think your page is organised and formatted very well! With more information/content, detailed diagrams and tables; it will further improve your Wiki Page! Good Luck.


Firstly, this is a very impressive wiki and I think you guys are setting the bar very high. The resources you have used and referenced are of really high quality and demonstrate that you have carried out extensive research and identified the information that is most relevant and important. The introductory video and all the images you have included are awesome and really help to solidify the information that you are presenting; they also add more depth to the page and provide further explanation and clarification of the information. The "Technical Progression" section is really great, well structured and provides a lot of explanation about the procedure that I found aided my understanding about major the concepts of the page.

My suggestions to improve your wiki page would be to have a second look at the layout and headings; I found they were difficult to follow and disrupted the flow of the page, for example the heading "Benefits" followed immediately by "Mitochondrial linked information" which was followed again almost immediately by "Hereditary Mitochondrial Disease". These headings made me stop and think about whether there was some information missing and I was just a little confused about whether the two latter headings came under the first. I really liked the inclusion of the legislation and ethics surrounding the topic (very interesting reading), however I am a bit concerned that they are the biggest portions of the page; I think this would be easily rectified by simple adding further explanations of the current research and journal articles that you have referred to instead of providing only one or two sentences about each. Lastly, it would be really interesting to present information about the controversial opinions/incidents surrounding the topics and also about the disadvantages of the procedures.

Over all, I think you guys have done an awesome job thus far and with a few minor changes the page will be amazing! Good Luck!


Firstly, I think your page is very well thought out and includes a lot of relevant information. The sub-headings fit in well with the topic and allow for a coherent flow of information, however it would be better if some of the sub-headings were re-arranged. For example, it might be better if the benefits section is placed after technical progression in order to really emphasize the relevance and value of this procedure. Under some sub-headings, it would be good if you could write 3 or 4 sentences summarising that section instead of having the sub-sub heading right underneath, especially for Benefits and Legal Status. This allows for a better flow of information and also makes it look more organised.

In terms of media content, I think the introductory video is great in providing a brief overview of the whole topic. I also think your choice of images for the technical progression section is great in being able to visually summarise the written information. As I could not see an original picture in your page, I think it would be a good idea to include a more visually appealling hand drawn diagram of one of your timelines. You could have the timeline going horizontally with coloured boxes coming off of it to describe the events. This can be easily hand drawn or done in word.

It's clear a lot of research has been done due to the sheer number of articles that have been referenced, especially in reference to the inclusion of several animal and human models. I like your use of timelines however I think the timeline under prohibited section is quite laden with content and can be presented in a more appealing way.

Overall, I think you guys have done a great job in setting up this page. It has the foundations to becoming a very informative and useful page.


The group project page ‘Three Persons Embryos’ covers a lot of aspects of this topic. The page incorporates the example of Alana Saarinen. This ‘personal’ case study makes the topic interesting and makes people want to learn more about it. The video is a good way of introducing the reader to the page, but maybe a summary would be useful for people who cannot/ do not want to access the video. Overall, the headings are in a logical order and the subheadings are useful. However, it might make it easier to follow the page if the subheadings for each of the techniques were unified, e.g. “Procedure” “Animal Models” “Current Research” for each procedure. Also, the heading “Benefits” appears to be rather a description of the indications for the procedure, a renaming of this heading might clarify this.

Many key points relating to the topic have already been mentioned, but expanding further on the majority of headings and subheadings would be useful. Several useful pubmed articles are mentioned where the text is only short, so only their summary is missing. The referencing appears to be correct most of the time, however, there are several instances where one paper was referenced several times individually. Check to learn how to avoid this.

In addition, the three uploaded images need to be double checked for their copyrights, as they do not clearly state an allowance for the reuse of their content. In case, they cannot be reused, the images could be self-drawn. The timelines are interesting and necessary components of the project. They could also be displayed as actual timeline-graphs. This would add to the amount of graphs used and illustrate the content nicely. Overall it might be useful to check for spelling and grammar mistakes before the final deadline.


From first glance of the page, just by looking at the contents table found at the top of the wikipage, I can already see that all the sections have been planned and well thought out with the appropriate subheadings and sub-subheadings which makes the page a lot easier to navigate if I were to be searching for something in particular on the topic ‘Three Person Embryo’

The introduction is short and concise with the appropriate description of what the topic is about, adding the YouTube video in your introduction was a great touch (props to you for asking the maker permission to re-use as it’s under the YouTube Standard License) however I think this section could be improved by maybe addressing the key points that the wiki page will be covering

It’s great to see some history behind the development and progression of ‘Mitochondrial’ Donation throughout the years!! Is there any more history regarding this topic or is 1997 the first date with historical records?? Tabulation of the data may clean up this section, but otherwise great find!

Under the benefits section, no actual benefits seems to have been listed? I think this section has not yet been completed

The pictures and information under the ‘Technical Progression’ subheading is substantial and informative. The images seem to have been referenced and labelled accordingly but not sure if they are reusable as the sites / locations you obtained them from do not mention permission rights for reuse of their material. Some of the referencing done still shows the blue PMID which disrupts the flow of the project page.

It is clear that a lot of research has been done into making this page what it is currently. I would suggest firstly to check that all material used on your page is re-useable as well as fixing up the minor coding of references and also grammar and spelling mistakes throughout the page. Great work!!


Your project is looking very promising. You have found great resources in you images and video as well as used an ample amount of valid and reliable PUBMED articles to support your findings. You have found a variety of interesting and relevant topics that you have succinctly communicated. I would recommend reviewing your work for grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors in your content and your headings. The video and images uploaded are very interesting, please ensue that they are correctly referenced, it would really be a shame if you lost marks on such great parts of your presentation, and more images, to the same quality standard as the Primate model would only improve your project. while the video is a great resource, your should find some journal article evidence to re-affirm its findings, enabling you to not only used the video but also other very reputable sources to validate your statements.

The timelines are a great way to succinctly present a lot, of information, easily.  perhaps re-do the Timeline of Mitochondrial Donation as an image, maybe you could incorporate your hand drawn or computer simulated image here. If you wish to reference most of the dates on your timelines - I would suggest either re-referencing the same resource of finding resources to support each date. Endeavour to make all timelines on the wiki page presented in the same manner, ensuring a uniform and cohesive webpage. 

Similarly your table under legal status is a great resource, perhaps you could make it a collapsible table, that way it will not take up such a large portion of your page, that could better be used for more content. Perhaps you could review the specific "countries" within the "regions" as some do not match

It would be in your best interest to look into restructuring some of your headings and links especially under Technical progression heading and the Mitochondria linked Infertility heading , and making the effort to present the information in the same manner under each using both animal and human models where applicable. this will make your web page easier to read and understand :) formatting is super important, spacing between subheadings as well as pictures break up the information and make it easier to read.

Certain areas within your report and good but could use a little more content such as the intoduction as well as Hereditory mitochondrial Disease in order to provided a well rounded base level of understanding for all users of this site. Many Pubmed links and references are scattered throughout the web page, these should be correctly coded and placed in the reference list, perhaps instead of having the articles there you could summaries the findings for the readers, it would be easier than having them outsource the information. Be careful of over referencing your pubmed articles and more key word that are being repeated should be incorporated into your glossary.

On the whole good work so far, I look forward to seeing the final result.


This Group Project has a lot of potential. Information is presented in an engaging way through an introductory video documenting a case, timeline providing retrospective insight as well as diagrams detailing the complex processes in a concise manner. I also found some subsections interesting and relevant, including the discussion on ethics, Current research areas, as well as the glossary which provides a quick reference.

Although I understand you intend to elaborate more on certain areas including current research, the project does seem a little thin in regards to text. There are many papers that are linked with no explanation. For example, with regards to the table under prohibitions, I am confused as to what exactly those countries prohibit (all genetic modification? mitochondrial techniques only?) and also whether there is any more nuance to the discussion (do they ban different things?). Of course, one could click through the links under each country, but i think some text before the table itself would only add to your project and bring more context to the table itself. Diagrams themselves can also be referred to in the text (as you would find in a textbook), to add context and create a more cohesive wikipedia page (e.g. for Pronuclear transfer). In terms of the information provided, a little deeper exploration or discussion about certain issues including the reasoning behind ethics arguments may be relevant. If the articles listed under the headings are anything to go by, it seems you intend to do this.

Finally, some proofreading will be very beneficial in polishing up the wikipedia page. There are some sentences like "And it effectiveness in doing so. And the processes that occur in the oocyte when this method is used" under Human Embryo Model, which may well do with some editing. I would like to add that the referencing has been fantastic and consistent. Good Luck!


The entire group project is short in comparison to other reports. Adding a video about a teenage girl who has three biological parents is an excellent tool to engage the readers. Regarding the history, the timelines used help structure the changes over time and allow easier reading, although it is reality short for the entire history, possibly add one or two more paragraphs covering all aspects of the history of three-person embryo. Benefits section wasn’t completed equally as some sections such as the mitochondria linked infertility and Hereditary mitochondrial disease are fairly small in comparison to the technical progression.

Diagrams, more timelines and human models were used and discusses which is a valuable asset to the project. As well as large tables discussing where this procedure is prohibited. Overall this group project reaches out to different aspects of three person embryos although it still has a long way to go, certain sections need to be updated with information, and some other sections need to be clarified more with the addition of vital information.

Adding further reading clearly shows that the group are interested in the topic they have chosen and have taken the time to add additional links for people who are interested in reading up on three person embryos. Also the glossary is way too small, it needs to include a lot more definitions, which is due to the lack of information in the overall set out of the project. The citations and references are filled out correctly and help with the clarity of the report.


The topic of three person’s embryo was outlined and described well, with good choice of headings, separating the different key points and areas that you’ve discussed on your page. It’s evident you’ve done extensive research on your topic, and especially going through your reference list, all your research data were extremely recent, which is excellent!


  • I loved that you put an introductory video in the beginning, which is a personal account rather than a scientific stimulation video, giving it a more personal touch on the page, and highlighting the importance of this breakthrough in 3 person’s embryos.
  • Because your topic isn’t a disease but a medical breakthrough, your own chosen headings were fantastic and on point, giving a well-rounded and detailed wiki page
  • The format of the page is also really good. Its good to use more subheadings than main headings, and you’ve formatted the page really well
  • You’ve used very current research, making your page much more credible and updated with the newest information
  • The “further reading” section was really good, it extended beyond the normal “teaching” topics, giving the reader a better insight of the topic, if they choose to.


  • The introduction looked a bit short. A more detailed explanation will make the reader understand a lot more on how it works and how the page looks, without the reader having to watch the video if they choose to just skim the page.
  • Your heading and subheading of “History” and “Timeline” could’ve been merged into one, as that was your only subheading of that heading,it would’ve looked more readable that way
  • Timeline information could be extended more, in terms of date (if found) and details on what occurred on that date
  • The heading of “Benefits” also needs to be extended VERY much more, two subheadings an 3 sentences under one, with a link under the other, does not explain any benefits at all
  • Pictures in “Technical Progression” could be skewed to the right, so the words all flow, with the HELP of the diagram, instead of the focus being on the photos
  • Current research also needs to be expanded more. PMID wouldn’t be needed either if you had expanded the current research, and referenced it in your reference list; section looks a bit messy with bullet points starting with hyperlink
  • “Technical Progression” needs to be greatly edited and to have information added
  • “Ethics” also needs to be expanded, and again, don’t lead with PMID
  • “Glossary” is not really needed if you explain those terms in each words occurrence instead of at the end, but this is a minute point
  1. 1.0 1.1 <pubmed>XXXXX</pubmed>