Talk:2015 Group Project 2

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 2 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.
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.
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 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. The language seems too simplistic in some sections, it was intended to be at university-level students.
6 Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology. Related to embryology (menstrual cycle, endocrine, ovary development, fertilisation).
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 evidence of group discussion and interaction. 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 evidence of group discussion and interaction.
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 video incorporated in the project page does relate to the topic. While the video is clearly relevant to your project topic. It is just a man sitting and describing the clinical disorder without adding much to illustrate the science behind OHSS. Not a very good use of video. Glossary was useful and included a list of both acronyms and terms.
10 Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines. Yes generally.


Total Edits - 328 (most edits in October not earlier) Aug to Sep - 42
  • 3415911 - 149
  • 3372824 - 92 (many edits at deadline)
  • 3374116 - 82
  • 5016784 - 5 (28 August 2015‎, 11 September 2015‎)
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.


  • 3374116 - 5 images
  • 3372824 - 3 images
  • 3415911 - 0 images
  • 5016784 - 0 images


  • Overview of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome Howcast (2013, August 27) Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome
    • While this video is clearly relevant to your project topic. It is just a man sitting and describing the clinical disorder without adding much to illustrate the science behind OHSS. Not a very good use of video.


  • Reference 31 is blank. - for animal models pictures and info.

--Z5016784 (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2015 (AEDT) Just regarding the peer reviewing of other group projects, do we have to be assessing all 5 other projects?

--Mark Hill (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (AEST) Hmm still a little thin. There should be some animal model info, histology images, physiological data, drug info, and genetic information.

--Z3374116 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (AEST) Hello there

--Z3415911 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2015 (AEST) Hey guys! So I've gone and added a few subheadings that may be useful to start researching. For this weeks assessment we need to choose one each and find 3 articles to go with it etc. So if we all choose one and start researching it, that would be good :)

--Z3415911 (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2015 (AEST) Good article for treatment

--Z3374116 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (AEST) Sweet, Thanks for putting up those headings to get things going. Lets all put up related documents by Thursday so we have can discuss things at the Lab this Friday!

--Z3374116 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2015 (AEST) I've put up some interesting pubmed documents on our main page, Have a read through them (I haven't read them all yet)

Classifications of Ovarian Hyper-stimulation Syndrome

Classification Symptoms
Mild Grade 1 - Abdominal distention and discomfort

Grade 2 - Abdominal distention, discomfort with nausea, vomiting and/or diarrhea and ovarian enlargement from 5~12cm

Moderate Grade 3 - All features of Mild OHSS with ultrasonographic evidence of ascites
Severe Grade 4 - All features of Moderate OHSS with the addition of clinical evidence of ascites and breathing difficulties present

Grade 5 - All of the above symptoms along with a change in the blood volume, increased blood viscosity due to coagulation and diminished renal function

--Z3374116 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2015 (AEST) I wont be able to make it to uni today for the lab and the meetup after it. Got to take my cousin to the ER

--Z3374116 (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2015 (AEST) I was thinking to include the risk factors in the 'causative' subheading

--Z3374116 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2015 (AEST) So basically in the Causative subheading, I was planning 1) Identify the different causes (including primary and secondary risk factors) 2) What difference occurs from a normal cycle (e.g. level of hCG normally)

--Z3415911 (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2015 (AEST) No problem! I hope your cousin is okay. Whoever added a sub heading called: Tests and Diagnosis, there already is the same kind of subheading, Symptoms and Diagnosis so we need to merge the two. It also needs to be in chronological order

--Z3372824 (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2015 (AEST)Hope he gets well! Talking about sections, I'll try and work on Prevention, and get the research summaries done for that section by next week.

--Z3372824 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2015 (AEST) J and I had a little discussion about how we're going to go about completing this. We can all work on each others sections and collaborate that way. Let's focus on finding research articles, collating them, referencing them i.e. get to the meat of the matter. Once we've done that we can cut to the point and make it more easy-to-read/user-friendly. We also think that our 1 wiki page reference should be the OHSS Wiki page. Also, when writing about your section, always compare/refer to the Controlled Ovarian Stimulation case. Bring those picture/youtube suggestions in!

--Z3374116 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2015 (AEST) Sweet, thanks for the info. Will be on the lookout for youtube clips and pictures. Is the OHSS wikipage you are referring to this one?? And I agree on helping each other with respective sections and then cutting it down to the fine details

--Z3415911 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2015 (AEST) Yes, that's the wiki page :) I have already started taking down information from it in each section so when you see [OHSS Wiki], that's where the information is from. I just don't know how to reference something that is not pubmed yet haha

--Z3415911 (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (AEST) Also guys please note, I have not used any info. from wiki in regards to TREATMENT and PREVENTION as it appears someone is already working on those subheadings and I don't want to interfere, so yea, that info. is still out there for you guys to use.

--Z3415911 (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2015 (AEST) Hey guys, can everyone please send me an email with your full names so I can add you on fb and make group. I feel like we need a better way of communicating. Thanks,

--Z5016784 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2015 (AEDT) Hey guys, i am working on a few sections, mark said not to add to the project until the peer assessments are done, so i was thinking of bringing my information to class on Friday so yous can have a look and see if it is useful enough, i will place the link to one article, it has two tables in there that i think can be used, what are your thoughts about them?

I have found a few articles on the effect on a newborn (Are pregnancy rates comprised following embryo freezing to prevent OHSS, also contains a few tables based on the results) (Increased early pregnancy loss in IVF patients with severe OHSS) (Outcome of complicated pregnancies by severe OHSS)

Animal models (Is a small experiment, with not a lot of information)

--Z5016784 (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2015 (AEDT) So what is happening with the articles and other sections?

Video that J found!

--Z3372824 (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (AEDT) So the FSH receptor/follicular development image comes from PMID 19573286

Peer Review

This wikipage is very well put together. Your choice of headings, subheadings and tables and images is remarkable, it definitely makes the whole page flow very well. I particularly like the hand-drawn image which does a great job at simplifying the process of the pathogenesis of OHSS.

The introduction very concisely explains the contents of the page and I liked how it was finished off with a statement about the aim of the page. I thought it really brought the introduction together nicely. I can’t say much about the content except that it is very engaging and very well written so well done guys! Keep up the good work!

Some suggestions I have that could improve your page include adding more images. It would be nice to have some graphs to complement the statistical date from the epidemiology. Also, in some of the paragraphs e.g. in the last paragraph of ‘Epidemiology’ there isn’t a citation that accounts for the information at the end of the paragraph so that should be fixed.

This page clearly and efficiently explains the topic of choice. It covers all relevant matters well and the text is descriptive and informative. After reading the page, I felt as though I had a greater understanding of the topic. The subheadings used are good, and are placed appropriately in order - providing an element of cohesiveness between the page and the topic in general. Good use of linking statements – connecting all the elements discussed on the page.

There is however an excessive amount of text used. Although the information is relevant and informative, the page is dense and reading all at once is tiresome. Reducing/sifting through the amount of text on the page – and also adding a great deal more media files will help to break up the denseness of the page. There is only 1 image on the whole page – greater attention needs to be paid to alternative media files and sources to help break up the page. Additional media files will also add to increasing the understanding of readers. The diagram drawn is neat and cited correctly. --Z5015534 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2015 (AEDT)

This Wiki covers the topic well. The content is very well written and easy to understand. Images and texts are correctly cited and referenced. In some of the sections, eg, ‘Ovulation Induction’, ‘Avoiding hCG during Luteal Phase Support’, more in-text reference will need to be added.

It is a great idea to have some bold texts in lines, which highlight the main points of paragraphs, and help readers to understand when skimming.

The hand-draw diagram of ‘pathogenesis of OHSS’ is excellent. It is well structured, and easy to understand and memorize. It will be great if more images, diagrams, videos can be added to the other sections.

Overall, the project page is very well developed. Some of the sections need to have more work on though. It would be nice if more graphs and tables can be added to balance the texts.

So far your wiki page gives a very good coverage of Ovarian Hyper-Stimulation Syndrome. The progression of your subheadings progresses logically from one topic to another. It's good to see that you've included an excellent hand-drawn image which is well suited to the 'pathophysiology' subheading. The amount of textual information you have under each heading is vast and gives a comprehensive description of OHSS. Furthermore, you have an excellent range of sources to support your discussion.

I feel however that asides from your hand-drawn image, your use of images and other source of media is definitely lacking. As is, your page is largely text with little to no breaks, making it quite difficult to read. The use of images would not only help break up the monotony of the text, but also help reinforce some of your ideas. I feel that the inclusion of images in the 'symptoms' and 'complications' subheadings would be suitable.

It may also be worthwhile to include subheadings concerning current research, to inform readers about contemporary developments regarding OHSS. Furthermore, 'future research' could also be another potential subheading and could illuminate potential areas that are beginning to be or could be investigated in coming years.

Overall, a very impressive page so far, that could be enhanced with the addition of relevant images and other media.

Great work, it looks like your group has a clear mindset and direction to where your group project is going, even if it is not there yet. Also great introduction! Your entire page's contents were introduced well and simple. However, all Text and no images were included except one image. Not a good look to go through. The information here is good but is also very dense and hard to follow without any images. It would be great if you could break it up a bit with more images, tables, diagrams and hand drawn pictures. This style of writing is very professional and would be perfect for a report or essay; however as a wiki page it is too hard to follow. Breaking up the information into tables and short videos would allow you to guide the reader through your topic. Well done on the use of bullet points make it easy to follow. Only one hand drawn image as well as one table uploaded onto the page contains adequate information explaining them, which is good.

Well done on use of “Glossary” section. It is indeed necessary and important.

There has clearly been a lot of research and work put into this project and that is very commendable and I do appreciate it. However on a whole as I mentioned, there is too much information without having any interactive techniques such as tables, diagrams and etc. One of my suggestions is to make a table for “Prevention” or “Genetics” section or even both. I also suggest adding another subheading for “current research findings” or “Future research” which requires more time and research. Therefore you can include more journal articles in this section .In this section pictures would also be good to help understand and engage readers. Overall, well done on your written information for each section. They’re very relevant to the topic and to the project as well.

Some sections like “Effect on the Newborn” or “Animal Models” seem to be untouched. I’m assuming you are still in the process of adding content. Please be aware of the deadline. Moreover, in text citation is crucial which are missing in some paragraphs. Citations should be carried through the entire page to know exactly where you have got your information from. Good job on referencing at the end of the page. All research articles seem to be relevant to all sections.

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. Keep up the good work, but just edit and add those things I mentioned to the project and finish the sections you need to. Very well done so far and good luck with finishing the project off.

I found your topic very intriguing! It appears as though you have put a lot of time into researching your area and ensuring that your have addressed the main concepts.


• Fantastic introduction! It gave me a clear overview of what your group’s topic is, and it was easy to understand.

• Great overview of the symptoms. Your table added some colour to the page and the information was succinct.

• You are to be commended on your hand drawn image - very clear and neat. Good job!

• Clear reference list and good in text citations.


• A map in the Epidemiology section would put your text into perspective for the reader.

• Some words have been typed in bold (particularly in the Diagnosis section). The selected words seem to be a bit random. Maybe you could highlight phrases rather than words, or organise the information under subheadings.

• More images would break up the information and aid the reader’s understanding of the given concepts. Subheadings would also help organise the information to place ease on reading and comprehension.

• Your page features large chunks of text for the most part. I would recommend reading through your text and removing excessive bits of information; try and be a bit more succinct. You could use more tables and diagrams to communicate certain concepts as well (e.g. Treatment and Diagnosis).

• Information is absent under “Animal Models” and “Effect on the Newborn.”

With this said, your group has covered all the key concepts and it is evident that you have done a lot of in depth research. You are definitely on the right track.

Collectively, this page is well structured and shows you have a well-rounded understanding of this topic. The introduction encapsulates the whole topic extremely well and provides a good framework for the rest of the page. The headings are relevant and follow the structure to discuss a disease, thus being very easy for the reader to grasp the key concepts of the syndrome. Perhaps consider using bullet points in your “Causative Agents” section and “Prevention” heading. You can also utilize numerical steps to describe the pathogenesis of OHSS to accompany the well-structured diagram, and to break up the text in your page.

I have also noticed that the page is lacking subheadings in a few sections, thus it prevents the reader from knowing the key points that are being discussed and explained. Together with the subheadings that are already present, they can also be used under “Diagnosis” for each diagnostic tool, “Genetics” for VEGF, LHR and BMP-15, and possibly in the “Animal Models” section. The content under each of these headings however, is very interesting and has been written well, showing you have gained a thorough understanding of OHSS. I am certain the content you add for the untouched headings will also be of a high standard. On that note, further explanation about treatments and complications of OHSS could be added. These sections are currently lists therefore they can be further expanded with more research and videos to explain things like surgery procedures.

The glossary provided is extremely beneficial however; more diagrams, tables, and videos should be incorporated to further enhance the reader’s understanding. At the moment it is quite content heavy and needs visual aids to make the page more interesting and easy to read.

This page also demonstrates that you have thoroughly researched each aspect of OHSS, and have used recent studies to support the content added. The resources have all been cited correctly, but perhaps search for more literature to further support your claims and theory regarding OHSS.

I am really impressed with your page so far. Using more references, visual aids, and adjusting the format of this page will guarantee a successful mark. Well done!

I’d like to start by commending you on an exceptional choice of key points which you have chosen to research and elaborate on. They provide a good overview of the subject for your readers. They are clearly explained and taught at a peer level without dragging on with irrelevant points. Your introduction is well written, I especially like that you have included the aim of you wikipage in the introduction and the key points you will be focusing on to orient your reader. Including epidemiology was also a good choice as it shows the relevance and impact of Ovarian-stimulation syndrome in society. I also find that including prevention and treatment is great for visitors without an embryology background who are looking for general information on the topic, especially for women who can learn to better reduce their risk since this page is accessible to the public.

Other great aspects of your page include the inclusion of a glossary for readers to refer to when they are unclear on the terminology and that you have used relevant sources. The table used to organize the symptoms makes its easy to read and understand. I particularly liked your section on the pathophysiology. Not only is it explained well but you have included a great hand drawn diagram that is clearly drawn, complements the adjacent paragraphs well and includes a statement with permission to other visitors to reuse it.

Going forward your main focus’ should be conducting further research to complete your remaining key points on the effects on the Newborn and animal models (very relevant for embryology peers). Also, focus on including more supporting diagrams and figures since so far you only have one. A histological image of the ovaries would be very appropriate to your topic. Make sure you read over your page to edit your grammar and wording for example in the phrase “they are given to assistive medication”. Your citing is well done, but make sure when you are referencing websites that you include the retrieval date such as in reference 11.

Overall your page is well written, with my main concern being is it sounds more like a report than a peer teaching page. You can fix this by adding more images, diagrams, figures and tables to break up the text and help to explain your content. Adding a video would also be engaging. Otherwise, great progress so far!

Everyone seems to have already commented on your introduction, but it will not deter me from giving you another amazing high five! That introduction is so well thought out and structured that it has set up the entire page in an easy to read and easy to understand way- amazing work!! The page as a whole was fantastically structured and I found it very easy to follow which made the experience of reading and learning about the topic. Furthermore the topic was outstandingly researched with a wide variety of sources and really demonstrated the time and effort that you guys have put into it so great job; however, one thing that lets you down here is that there are some citations missing or large chunks of writing that are not cited which is a shame because it is evident that you have put in the time and effort. The language that has been used through out the page, although very formal, was appropriate and made it easy to understand the information. This was further aided by the inclusion of the glossary which is a necessity and was very well planned. I also really enjoyed the inclusion of the section "Epidemiology" as it provided a comprehensive snap shot and scope of the disease.

Some aspects that you could improve on include the inclusion of more images, videos, graphs and tables. Again, everyone seems to have commented on this, there is too much writing and it makes it difficult to follow and stay concentrated on the information. Another point to improve on would be further explanations about the treatment and prevention, this would be highly beneficial as it not only would provide information to students but also relevant and useful information to the public as the site is public facing. Lastly, the information missing below the “Effect on the Newborn” and “Animal Models” section will add another layer of detail and ultimately complete the page.

Overall, you guys have done an amazing job- the main area of improvement is the inclusion of more interactive and visual elements that can break up the chunks of texts and make the page more well-rounded. Awesome work and I look forward to seeing the end result!!

This Wikipage is very well structured, the headings and subheadings are all very appropriate; the introduction presents the entire topic very well. This really grabs the attention of the audience as the structure of the page is very easy to navigate. “Epidemiology” was very easy to understand as you introduced all the jargon with its shortened name; good idea to add the glossary at the bottom defining all the scientific terms. It is very beneficial for those audience who have not been introduced to these scientific terms. “Causative Agents” was explained perfectly, which makes it easier for the audience to read. I also suggest using some bullet points and tables. It’s great to see the use of tables in “Symptoms”, it simplifies the content and makes it easier to categorise the different severity of the symptoms. As for “Diagnosis”, I suggest adding some subheading to separate the different ways of diagnosis (History, physical examination, ultrasound, further investigations etc). Make sure you add more subheading throughout the page, it highlights the key points for each heading for the audience. “Complications”, “Treatment” and “Prevention” has good use to subheadings, it is well structured and interesting to read. This shows that you have conducted adequate literature searches and have a deep understanding of OHSS. I suggest to add more information into complication, case studies or examples could be used.

I am impressed to see that you guys have drawn your own detailed diagram. However, I suggest that you add more diagrams, videos and tables; this can enhance the audience’s understanding towards OHSS. There is a lot content at this point which is great to see all the research you guys have conducted however, it need visual aids to make the page easier and more interesting to read. All the resources have been cited correctly but I think more research to support the page and enhance the validity of your information.

Overall, I am very happy with this page. Remember, more visual aids (diagrams, videos, tables and flowcharts). Great work!

The contents of the website about OHSS appear to be very well researched and the key points of the topic are clearly described. The headings and subheadings are in a logical and complete order. However, it might be useful to add a new heading labelled “Current Research” about e.g. the pathophysiology, treatments, diagnosis, etc. It might be that this will be included in the “animal models” section, which is still incomplete. Upon completion of the last sections it might be useful to round the website off with a conclusion.

The website so far has only one image. However, the image is self-drawn and very clear. The image is useful, readable, and makes the understanding of the pathophysiological processes easier. It might be good to consider adding more graphs and images to the website. Useful images could display the involved anatomical structures, the symptoms, and the diagnostic procedures (Ultra-sound showing OHSS).

The used references are all very recent, which strengthens the credibility of the website. However, sometimes sentences or paragraphs are not cited at all. Thus, lacking citations should be added. The glossary is a nice addition to the website but still needs to be completed (VEGF, LHR, BMP-15, etc.)

It might be beneficial if the link to ART were explained more clearly. As the general frame of the project is ART, including OHSS’ implications on the procedure, causative role, etc. would elucidate that link.

The structure of your page is very effective in allowing us to easily understand the topic. The introduction is brilliant as it focuses on the main points of the topic while touching on a bit of its history and then finally stating the purpose of the page.

The hand drawn image is outstanding and presents the information in a very appealing way. As there is only one image so far, it would be great if you could include more images, especially for sections such as epidemiology and causative agents. For diagnosis, you could include an image of an ultrasound or X-ray which would give us a better understanding of the physical changes that are seen as a result of this problem.

I love the use of bold text to highlight the important features of some sections. It would be great if this is used in the other sections too as it really helps to focus on the main points.

The use of a table to present the symptoms is a great idea. It would be great if this was also done for treatments which is also divided into sections of mild, moderate and severe.

It's evident that a lot of research has been done to finding the information on this topic, however I feel that for some sections, there might be a bit too much information, particularly for Prevention and Genetics. If possible, try and make these sections more concise by focusing on the main points. For genetics, it might be helpful to have a sub-sub heading for each new growth factor or receptor discussed.

Overall, I think you guys have done an amazing job with this page. Apart from the minor changes here and there, there is not much more to be done. Great job!

First of all, I’d like to say this is a fantastic wiki page. The key points for polycystic ovarian syndrome are well described. The page is well structured and the layout is clear and easy to follow. Making each section expandable is a good idea. The bold texts in lines highlight help readers catching the main points easier. One of the highlights of this page is the introductory. It is well written and the aim of the page gives reader an overview and a general idea of this page. The table and image used are relative to the topic. The background color of the table is pretty nice and the content in the table is still easy to read. The glossary at the end of page helps those without background knowledge understanding the topic easier. The references and citations are appropriate as well as the text citations. Some recommendations I will give will be:

1. More images and videos may be used so that the page is easier to read.

2. Recent research may be included in your page.

Overall, you have done a fantastic job. Thanks for your effort.

Great project so far, it is well structured and easy to read. the headings make sense and flow easily form one to the next. You introduction is really nice and the stated purpose at the bottom as well as a brief historical context really and depth and context to the assignment. your have also used of dot points and bold to highlight key points within the text which is very effective. Your hand drawn image is clear and concise, it is also correctly cited as well good job!

There is not much more that I would recommend for this web page, as the content is very relevant. I recommend trying to use some more references, they are valid and useful but most of the other groups have nearly double the resources and references that you guys do, perhaps a good target would be more than 1 citation per paragraph.

Also more images could be used as you page is very content heavy, but you could use more images, a video and perhaps even a Graph to break up the information. under the Causative agent subheading perhaps you could make reference to pituitary action as well as the anterior pituitary and provide a flow chart of diagram, there are many excellent diagrams displaying this process that could be incorporated here- look into text books. The animal models would be as awesome addition to you webpage and there will be a huge range of awesome images that you will be able to use and maybe incorporate current research in the field subheading and find some information of current studies being conducted ect. Great use of the glossary but more terms need to be added to the list. Also you have a lot of physiology and pathology content - which is fantastic perhaps you may try to relate it back to ART and IVF more as well as maybe including abnormalities and effects of the development and birth of the child.

On the whole, this is an awesome project, and there isn't much more to do to complete it. Great Job guys

Great stuff guys, Good layout, nice flow of topics and comprehensive. Language is easy to follow. Well research and supported. There are couple of parts that need some references WIKI original recommends that if you make a statement of fact or something that can be disputed you should add a reference ie. last statement of epidemiology . But, work in progress, i understand. You could hyperlink some of the more unfamiliar words to the UNSW embryology glossary and other pages to get the wiki "click through" effect. I hate to recommend it because i really like how clean and "wiki" like your page is but we have to add images so perhaps a map of the genes and mutations, show the promoters and such? The symptoms section has some repetition to its structure i think you should condense it all into the table then write a lead in paragraph to the table. Lead in could have a bit about when the symptoms usually come on in life? I would recommend moving diagnosis to above treatment and after pathology to help with flow. This would also semi-separate the page into theory and clinical. For the pathology image if you make a one by one table and put the image into it, it should sit in alignment on the page. Its just my browser but on a smaller screen it cuts out to the left. Not a big deal. try to have the images on a line to them selves or at the end of paragraphs rather then word wrapping the text. Makes it look neater no matter how big you have the window. That's all i can think of. Other wise looks like it going to be one of the best of the class. Very professional.

The topic of OHSS was outlined very well, with very 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 all your information is very concise and very readable. You’ve also extended your topic beyond the general symptoms, diagnosis, causes etc like “animal models” “effect on the newborn”, it is very extensive! Pros

  • Extensive research evident, a lot of information is provided
  • Introduction is short and concise, but also extremely informative, highlighting the aim of the page as well!
  • Statistics of the disease is also given, numerical data is always good
  • Good use of a table in “Symptoms”, making it very readable and engaging
  • The presence and position of the drawing in “Pathophysiology” is prenominal, you’ve gone out of your way to draw a diagram to illustrate the topic
  • Good use of bullet points in “Treatment”, very concise and readable and there isn’t a jumble of words


  • A photo or video in your introduction could be used to illustrate what the topic is better
  • There’s a lot of technical jargon already in your introduction, words like neoangiogenesis and iatrogenic. Readers who come to your page may not necessarily understand those words. These words can be defined in your glossary, but readers read in logical flow, they won’t scroll all the way to the bottom of your page because they didn’t understand the word to find the meaning then come back to the introduction to continue. These words don’t have to be replaced, but an explanation might ease your cause
  • A graph or table or pie chart representing epidemiology will make the heading more informative
  • Photos showing symptoms will substantially help, especially when they’re separated into mild, moderate, and sever.
  • Diagnosis needs to be expanded more. The bold type words should be made into subheadings so you can expand on each more, defining how and why they are performed
  • Headings of “effect on the newborn” and “animal models” need to be completed
  • You have a lot of information on your page but only a few are referenced, a lot more in text referencing and references are needed for the amount of information you have