Talk:2015 Group Project 5

From Embryology
Revision as of 16:10, 16 November 2015 by Z8600021 (talk | contribs) (Peer Review=)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Referencing 
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/>

Plagiarism 
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 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery?term=embryo ''embryo'']
Pubmed embryo [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=embryo ''embryo'']
Pubmed 5 most recent references[1] <pubmed limit=5>embryo</pubmed>
Pubmed Central embryo [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=embryo ''embryo'']
Pubmed Central (images) embryo [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=embryo&report=imagesdocsum ''embryo'']
PLoS (Public Library of Science) embryo [https://www.plos.org/?s=embryo&submit=Go ''embryo'']
BioMed Central embryo [http://www.biomedcentral.com/search/results?terms=embryo ''embryo'']
BMC Developmental Biology embryo [http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcdevbiol/search/results?terms=embryo ''embryo'']
Biology Open (BiO) embryo [http://bio.biologists.org/search?submit=yes&titleabstract=embryo&andorexacttitleabs=and&fulltext=&submit=yes&submit=Submit ''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.


Assessment

Group Assessment Criteria 
  1. The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described.
  2. The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area.
  3. Content is correctly cited and referenced.
  4. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations.
  5. Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities.
  6. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  7. Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki.
  8. Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement.
  9. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning.
  10. Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines.


Editing

Total Edits - 382 Aug to Sep - 127
  • 3463890 - 152
  • 3463667 - 131
  • 5015534 - 101
  • 5015752 - 0
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.

Images

Videos




Hey guys - i tried to upload a video for the how cancer cells work section - but i have no idea how to do it, tried looking it up but have failed immensely! so i you know how to do it - please explain haha so grateful! thanks --Z5015534 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2015 (AEDT)


--Mark Hill (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2015 (AEST) OK, there is so much more that should be on your project page by now. That currently consists of all text, no media, histology, graphics, tables etc. Furthermore no discussion of animal models used in research for this topic. This project page is not ready for peer review.


Hi everyone, the page is coming together well. only thing is while we write up our parts can we focus on all using in text referencing so that we are consistent and can just have a single reference list at the bottom. I found out how to use the same reference again and only have it associated with one in text number, so if you are using the same reference and would like me to show you how to do this let me know :) --Z3463667 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2015 (AEST)

I have added some of the references + citations but not yet finished as this is only the draft and I might delete some of the parts so there is no point adding the citations/ text referencing now. I will add my part at the end. I'm still waiting for your part to see what to do. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15951668 --Z3463890 (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2015 (AEST)

Research/Review articles

[Oncofertility and breast cancer: Where have we come from, where are we going?].

<pubmed>25991386</pubmed>

This article focuses on the current context of national and international recommendations, techniques development to evaluate and preserve fertility and patients' claims, this study aims to make a survey about the management of patients' breast cancer regarding oncofertility. This article concludes that , in order to satisfy patients' requests, several improvements have to be made regarding the patients' information, the health professionals' awareness and care coordination.I don't go through it now but very interesting article to read and useful for our group project.

Emergency fertility preservation for female patients with cancer: clinical perspectives.

<pubmed>26026071</pubmed>

This article explains about clinical perspectives to explore the new as well as the currently available options and strategies that can be used for emergency fertility preservation of female cancer patients.Such options include emergency ovarian stimulation, embryo freezing, egg freezing, ovarian tissue freezing and autotransplantation, in vitro maturation, and ovarian protection techniques. This article also mentions the advantages and disadvantages of each option as well as a new comprehensive multi-step strategy for these situations.


Sexual dysfunction and infertility as late effects of cancer treatment

<pubmed>26217165</pubmed>

As all we know, Sexual dysfunction is the main consequence of cancer treatment. Problems are usually linked to damage to nerves, blood vessels, and hormones that underlie normal sexual function. This article emphasizes on these sexual dysfunction and does in depth. It addresses that innovations in cancer treatment such as robotic surgery or more targeted radiation therapy have not had the anticipated result of reducing sexual dysfunction. Therefore, advances in both technologies and in knowledge about how cancer treatments can damage fertility, offer hope to patients who want children.

Impact of fertility preservation counseling and treatment on psychological outcomes among women with cancer: A systematic review

<pubmed>26264701</pubmed>

This article explains about psychological outcomes in female cancer patients who undergo fertility preservation counseling/consultation (FPC), with or without fertility preservation (FP).I read through the whole article as I found it really interesting and relevant to our group project. This is another subheadings we can add to those.

--Z3463890 (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2015 (AEST)


I DID THE SAME :)



Variability in the practice of fertility preservation for patients with cancer.

<pubmed>26010087</pubmed> This is an interesting article on how reproductive endocrinologists counselled cancer patients on fertility preservation. This is relevant to our group projects because it gives us an idea of what techniques and services are currently being utilised to help women.

Strategies for fertility preservation in young patients with cancer: a comprehensive approach.

<pubmed>24669162</pubmed> This article recognises that as cancer treatment improves the life span of patients, with it comes the treat to fertility. It is a great article as it clearly states what methods are currently available for addressing fertility preservation in males and females.

Clinical guide to fertility preservation in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients.

<pubmed>24419521</pubmed> This article focuses specifically on patients suffering infertility due to hematopoietic cell transplantation. It lists the options available to the patients whether female or male, which are applicable to patients who underwent other treatments and also lists the barriers to fertility preservation.

Fertility preservation in patients with haematological disorders: a retrospective cohort study.

<pubmed>24140311</pubmed> This article addresses fertility treatment in patients with haematological disorders specifically. However, is it a really good article as it is a cohort study comparing patients at various stages in their cancer journey, such as those who have had prior chemotherapy, those who pursued ovarian stimulation and those who did not pursue fertility treatment at all.

just moving my articles here for reference while i edit the project page. --Z3463667 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2015 (AEST)

Hi I have added some points to the page but i will add more info soon. In terms of references and accurate citation, I have written down all the references and I will add those at the end as I might edit/delete some of them. I will explain those fertility drugs too. just added the names and do them over weekend.

--Z3463890 (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2015 (AEST)


Hi everyone,

yes, I agree we have to assign everyone a certain section to write about, I'm happy to do Infertility causing cancers ( I already found those related articles from pubmed) and Oncofertility timeline. so if everyone is happy I can start it :)

--Z3463890 (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2015 (AEST)


Hi People,

Does anyone know how to reference a non pubmed source? I'm not sure how to reference the general information that we want to put on our page? I definitely think also that we should assign everyone a certain section to cover - so that were not all just editing and adding stuff in chaos - Ive started editing the chemotherapy section of the page - i hope this is alright if i take that on- i found some good info! dont worry the stuff i have up now is no where near finished.. just having a play around with general stuff and trying to get the hang of editing etc... (literally no nothing about IT...) But at the end it obviously will be all sorted and good :)

Thanks

--Z5015534 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2015 (AEST)


Hey everyone,

As discussed we will be researching oncofertility as our topic for this week, and depending on how successful our research is we will decide on whether we stick to the topic or not. I have added some potential subheadings to help guide our research, feel free to change them and add more. We need to pick a subheading each and find research articles related to it for this weeks individual lab assessment. https://oncofertility.northwestern.edu/patients/fertility-preservation-options-nu --> this is a good website to trigger ideas to research. --Z3463667 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2015 (AEST)

Peer Review

1

Let me start off by commending this group on a fantastic page! It is incredibly thorough, detailed and long. You can immediately see that a lot of work and research has gone into it. You have a great list of references and they appear to be cited correctly throughout the page. However, some sections which appear to be incomplete and lack some citations e.g. “fertility preservation”.

One suggestion I will make, is it would be good to see the addition of some hand-drawn images, perhaps one under either of the first 3 headings. Some more images could be used under the heading “surgery”. The videos used on this page are great. Really informative, relevant and easy to watch. I also think the “what are cancer cells” section should be higher up on the page as it is part of the basis of what the whole page is about. It also cuts between the two sections “chemotherapy” and “how does chemotherapy work?” which should be one after another. On the topic of formatting, you have a heading in there called “oncofertility timeline”, I think it would be better placed at the beginning of the page where it is more relevant.

I also think there is just too much text in some areas e.g. “Fertility preservation in women” and “surgery”. It makes that part of the page look clustered and difficult to read. Perhaps simplifying it more into bullet points, as you have done in other areas of the page, would be good. Conversely though, I think areas such as “targeted drugs” and “bone marrow or stem cells transplant” could use more work, however, it is possible you still intend to work on those areas anyway.

I would suggest adding a glossary to the bottom of your page to assist in those who view your page with a lower level of scientific knowledge. You have covered an expansive range of topics pertaining to your topic, all of which are relevant and link well with each other. The page has a great focus on the learning aims of embryology. I think with some formatting corrections and some simplification of the text, this will be a really wonderful page.


Awesome page so far guys! I commend you on your use of various videos to assist in conveying your ideas. Furthermore, the images you have chosen are highly relevant to the topic of discussion and assist the reader in gaining a greater understanding of oncofertility. All copyright information is present for the images you have used which is excellent to see. It may be worth including a hand drawn image under the 'radiation' subheading, as we are required to include at least one such image. The current image under the radiation subheading could easily be replicated by hand and could fulfill this portion of the criteria.

I am nitpicking here, but I would also recommend including some kind of media, most likely a picture, underneath the surgery subheading. It might even be worth doing the hand drawn image here if possible. A picture may also be good underneath the 'types of chemotherapy drugs' subheading, just to break up the wall of text and improve the reading experience for the reader. It might also be worth restructuring the 'oncofertility limitations' subheading into the form of a table (if possible), as the bullet point format feels quite awkward and out of place compared to the rest of the page. The inclusion of a glossary is also recommended, as this page will be accessible by the general public and a glossary will assist those without a background in embryology to understand and appreciate your content.

Keep up the great work guys! Your page is absolutely amazing so far and the effort you have put in is definitely reflected in the high quality of your page.


3

COMMENDATIONS

• The short video was a good visual aid that helped me understand your topic.

• The use of tables and a few images were good additions to your page.

• Good referencing throughout.

• Your “Oncofertility Timeline” was great; straight to the point and well organised. Maybe place it at the beginning of your page as a part of your introduction?


RECOMMENDATIONS

• Make sure your proofread your work; I saw a few very long sentences that could be broken up into smaller sentences. This will make your page easier to read and understand.

• Furthermore, some words are capitalised that don’t need to be; e.g. “Oncofertility” in your introduction and “Chemotherapy” in the Infertility section.

• Your page would benefit from the use of subheadings. There are large chunks of information under your headings, making it a bit difficult to follow at times (particularly in your Radiation section).

• I recommend reading through your information and removing details that may be excessive. By making your information more concise, your page will flow better and will encourage the audience to keep reading. Some of the information is a bit repetitive across your sections.

• I liked the use of a table in “Fertility Preservation in Men,” however, I feel as though you could add more details to it. I found the concepts presented in this table difficult to understand; maybe link it a bit better to the information below? Or just organise all of the information into a table?


Very well researched topic, with all key points being addressed. Condensing all of your research and being a little more selective about what you include will be the key to a great final page.

4

The wikipage looks like it’s progressing very well, especially with the amount of content and references I can safely say you guys have worked hard on it and have done a substantial amount of research so well done guys. I liked the flow chart that you guys inserted, it really simplified the understanding of the IVF procedure as opposed to reading lengthy text. I also particularly liked the collapsible timeline which was presented very nicely and summarised the progress of oncofertility over time very well.

As for improvements, the references definitely need to be fixed up. There were multiple appearances of the same reference and some of the links also did not work such as reference 24 and 25. On top of that the referencing for the websites were not in a consistent format and some were also done incorrectly so be sure to fix that up. I would also look out for the type of sources used such as webmd and medianews today. I’m not entirely sure if they are reliable or acceptable but I suggest you consult Mark about that.

Additionally, the use of tables is a very good way of presenting information however, for the tables under the topic of fertility preservation for both men and women I initially though that each of the columns was a comparison against each other. Only later did I realise that each of the columns contained an individual list of treatments. To minimise the confusion I suggest rearranging the table and labelling row 1 as ‘Before treatment’, then row 2 as ‘During treatment’ and finally row 3 as ‘After treatment’ then collectively placing the treatments in their rightful spaces in the following column.

A glossary is also missing from this page, having the definitions of the more difficult terms would assist with understanding the topic. Also on another note in the ‘Types of Chemotherapy drugs’ section, I think it would look more aesthetically pleasing if bullet points were used rather than the dashes.

Overall, there is a substantial amount of content, and great use of images, videos and tables. Keep up the good work!

5

This page is progressing really well. You have lots of content aided by some videos and relevant images. You have discussed extremely relevant aspects of your chosen topic, which is highly commendable, however the page seems very content heavy. I would suggest making the bolded headings as actual subheadings to make it easier for the reader to ‘jump’ sections. This is evident for sections “Surgery”, “Fertility Drugs”, and “Fertility Preservation in Men and Women”. To break up the text further and keep the page exciting for your audience, consider using bullet points to convey your information under the sections previously mentioned. You have used dashes (-) but perhaps the different colour and layout of the bullet points will make your page much neater. I should also note that the oncofertility timeline has been condensed well. You may want to move it to the top of the page for readers to understand the history of oncofertility and its progression.

The videos you have incorporated are very insightful and easy to understand. The same can be said for the images on the page as they help to explain the information you have laid out. The only exception I have is for the images under “Radiation” and “Chemotherapy”. Although they are relevant and simple, you may want to replace them for a diagram or flow chart that is more practical to the reader. For example, you could draw a diagram or flow chart of how radiation and chemotherapy eliminate cancer cells. Because you have a lot of text, try adding more images, videos, or condensing the information into a table, especially in “Surgery”, “Types of Chemotherapy Drugs” and “Fertility Preservation”.

Throughout the page, there are areas that have not been focused on as much as others. This includes “Artificial Insemination” and “In-Vitro Fertilisation” where there is very little content. These processes are currently really big in the fertility industry so with more research, I am certain there will be relevant articles to use for your page. You could also refer to these studies specifically to support the content, and discuss their success rates.

The references have been cited inconsistently, which can be fixed with proofreading. In particular, references 19 to 25, 33 and 44 needs to be checked as they have been incorrectly cited or are non-existent. I am also finding that content under a few sections are lacking in-text references, such as “Radiation”, “How Does Chemotherapy Work?”, “Types of Chemotherapy Drugs” and “Side Effects”. Be sure to add citations in these headings to avoid being accused of plagiarism, and to encourage further reading by your readers.

So far this page is very impressive. The amount of information you have included, and the useful videos shown, demonstrates your hard work and efforts into making this page successful. With more editing, visual aids and content, this page will be tremendous. Well done!


6

This is an excellent group project wiki. The content covers the topic in all aspects. However, there might be excessive effort in the investigation of ‘infertility’, ’Fertility Drugs’ and ‘Chemotherapy’, which occupied more than half of your project page. They are relevant to this topic, but might need to be consolidated to balance the page.

Images and videos are good choice in your page. It would be better if more images, diagrams, tables are added into your page to balance the texts.

Referencing and citing are excellent in most section, although some sections seem to be lack of in-text references. You might still want to work on them. Overall, this wiki is an excellent work in investigating oncofertility. It is relevant to the aim of learning embryology.

7

Awesome page overall guys- I think everyone has agreed that it is an amazing achievement and you have done a great job.

The amount of research and the number of resources; as well as the correctly referenced sources, is something the be very proud of. It also presents a very thorough and detailed explanation about the topic that creates a well rounded and highly informative page. I also really liked the inclusion of bolded subheadings under the "Surgery" section as it made the page easier to read; however there seems to be a little bit of inconsistency as later in the page seemingly random words are in bold text- I wasn't sure of their importance or whether you were going to include a glossary so I got a little side tracked and I found that section a bit more difficult to read.

A few areas of improvement-- there aren't many; especially to do with the actual writing and information of this page. The first would be to include some more images, videos, tables or diagrams. Although you have quite a few already, the sheer size of the page and the amounts of information beneath each subheading means that you really do need to have more interactive elements and visual aids to help with understanding the content; I found that sometimes I got a little lost within the large chunks or writing and it became more difficult to follow. There seems to be a little bit of inconsistency throughout the page and because there are such vast amounts of information beneath most subheadings, I think that it would be beneficial to restructure some of the sub headings such as "Bone marrow or stem cell transplants" into sub-sub-headings to aid with continuity and over all visual aesthetics of the page. Finally, another way to reduce to presence of chunks of information would be to utilise some more tables to break up the volume and density of information, especially because it is a very heavy (terminology wise) topic.

Over all you guys have done an absolutely outstanding job and I really look forward to the final product!! Good Luck!!

8

This page is off to a really good start! Just skimming through the page shows that you have really done thorough research. The page is very content heavy but it is also good to see that you guys have began to add detailed images, tables and videos. To make the page seem less content heavy, I suggest changing some bolded heading to Subheading which will neatly and evenly space out the content; it will make it easier for the audience to read as they can just pick which heading they prefer to read. I have noticed the “oncofertility timeline” is located at the very bottom, it would be a good idea to move it to the top to show the audience the progression and history of oncofertility.

It is great to see that you have make the use of bullet points; as a reader I would prefer to see a bullet dot rather than a hyphen (-). I know this may be a small thing to change but it will look a lot neater. The videos used in this page is very insightful and interesting, this will keep the audience intrigued. It is clear that some areas have not been focused on such as “Artificial Insemination”, “In-Vitro Fertilisation”, “Oncofertility timeline”, “Unique chemotherapy drugs” and “How does it effect the cancer cells”. With more research I am sure these areas can be successfully improved.

Extensive research have been conducted which is great to see however some references have not been cited correctly, as they are no present under the references (33, 45) while a few are repetitive (26/27, 24/25), 19 is just inconsistence. Just a reminder that references are requires in the body of the page; so just proof read everything and include the references.

Overall, the page is outstanding. The content and videos shows the amount of effort you guys have put into this Wikipage. With these peer assessments, I am certain that the page will improve a lot!

9

The website contains a lot of information and covers all key points relevant to the topic. It shows that the topic of oncofertility and cancer in general has been researched very well. The addition of many pictures, graphs and tables is useful for understanding the written contents. The videos are a great way to bring some variety into the website and illustrate cancer and chemotherapy well. It might be nice to look for videos for the oncofertility section. Making several keywords bold is a good way to stress their importance and helps readers to orientate around your website. The timeline of oncofertility is very extensive and the table is a great way of presenting this information.

Overall, the structure of the headings is a bit confusing. It might be more logical to place the “chemotherapy” section before the “infertility” heading. Moreover the “infertility” section appears to be rather about the causes of infertility instead of describing what infertility is, so renaming might useful. The referencing overall is good, however, here and there some references are missing, for instance in “Bone marrow or stem cell transplant” or “How Does Chemotherapy Work?”. Additionally, some references were used more than once using the wrong code, which makes them show up several times in the reference list. Check https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Help:Reference_Tutorial#Multiple_Instances_on_Page to learn how to avoid this. The image ‘IVF flow chart’ does not include the copyright information.Overall, double check the copyright and referencing of the images under the chemotherapy sections.

As for the tables comparing fertility preservation in men and women, the presentation in two identical tables is very helpful. However, adding some more information for the men one or changing something of the layout of the table would make the table look less incomplete. The way it is now makes it look a little ‘neglected’. It might be interesting to add a “current research” section and a glossary to clarify terms.

10

You have made an awesome page! The page layout is really good which is neat and easy to read. Making the oncofertility timeline table expandable is a good idea. Lots of research and work have been done! The key points relating to the topic are clearly described. The use of images, tables and videos are appropriate and highly relative to the topic. I will make the following suggestions.

1. The references and citations still need to be checked, eg: the videos lack citations.

2. It would be better if you can use a hand-drawn image.

3. A glossary at the end of page will help those without background knowledge understanding the topic easier.

4. More images can be used since you have a heavy content.

Overall, you have done a great job!

11

The page is very informative with a good balance of text, images and videos. Clearly a lot of research has been done to cover such an expansive topic.

The introduction provides a good overview of the topic and the growing concern for the issue, however there was no clear cut definition of the topic. The first sentence resembles the first sentence of the actual wikipedia page so it would be good to change it. It would also be good to include a few statistics so we can get an understanding of the scope of the issue. For example what percentage of infertility is caused by cancer? You can also have this under a separate heading called Epidemiology.

I liked that each section was covered comprehensively, however, there wasn't a coherent flow between the sub-headings. The formatting of the headings also made it difficult to know if it was a separate sub-heading or a sub sub-heading. I suggest that you should only underline the major sub headings and have all other minor headings in bold and in smaller size font. This makes it easier to read the information and makes it look more organised. The headings itself also made it hard to follow. It would be good to divide the page into the familiar sub-headings such as cause, treatment and prevention. For treatment, it would be good to divide it into treatment for infertility and treatment for cancer.

The chemotherapy is section is very detailed with an abundance of information which shows that a lot of research was conducted, however it does not need to be this detailed. The focus of this page should be on oncofertility and not solely on cancer treatments themselves. While background information on cancer is important, it can be delivered in a more succinct manner.

I liked the choice of images and videos for your page. I could not find an original image on your page. You can hand draw or use Word to make a simplified version of one of the existing images on your page.

It would be good to include a glossary at the end of the page to state the definitions of difficult terminology.

Overall, you have researched this topic well and have provided a very detailed analysis covering the several aspects, however a few changes need to be made to the structure and organisation of the page to make it more coherent.

12

Great work so far on your wikipage guys, even just at first glance it is clear how much research and work was put in to make this page what it is. The amount of information that has been provided on the page is quite substantial. Within the contents table at the top of the page, each section has been broken down accordingly allowing ease of navigation for those who wish to know more about Oncofertility. The introduction provides us with a nice description of what Oncofertility is as well as a definition of the term ‘infertility’ which is helpful to those who do not know much information regarding the terms

I think that some information can be split up into more paragraphs, especially information in the subheading ‘Radiation’, currently it is just a wall of text which makes it extremely hard to focus and understand all the words. Seeing as it is a procedure, maybe someone can include a hand-drawn image of the process and how affects the body?

Information in the other sections are well organised and provides useful relevant information as well as providing deeper knowledge into certain techniques, chemicals and cancer cells in general. The information is a good addition (for both cancer cells and chemotherapy  however there is no referencing available to be found for both your videos. I think more images (hand-drawn or from other resources) need to be added to balance out the amount of text you have on your page.

The overall structure other than the main subheadings that you currently have could be improved as some sections are just too long and cover a too broad information to be just kept under one subheading. Make use of more dot points to summarise the information. The table under Fertility preservation in women was concise and provides easy to read data, however the colouring of the background makes it hard to distinguish where each section of the box finishes and ends (maybe I’m colour-blind). I also think that it might be helpful to add a glossary to the bottom of your wikipage as there are quite a lot of terms that people may not understand 

Overall great work on your wikipage, I look forward to reading the final version!! Good luck!

13

This project contains a lot of information, but right from the beginning through to the end it is obvious that it is unclear and hard to follow, all the information is placed there but needs to be clarified further and made easier to read. Diagrams and videos are used which help giver a richer understanding of the project. A large reference list cited all over the project validates the sources of information.

In contrast to the large amount of information and few diaphragms and videos used, there should be more diagrams used, such as histological slides, timelines, YouTube videos and hand drawn diagrams. This would help the readers have an easier time following the path of this report as at the moment it is just a lot of information with few diagrams and videos. The use of sub headings followed by more subheadings is a very good way to organise the information in which they have done well.

Lack of a glossary won’t help the readers if they haven’t heard of certain things, so a glossary is advised to be added in. Although the amount of information is a clear indication of the amount of research and valuable information found, the clarity of the project needs to be addressed as it will bring the entire project together.

14

Your information extends beyond what is expected, but also extensive and readable and engaging. The page is formatted really well. Pros

  • The structure of your page is really good. It flows well, all headings and subheadings were chosen really well, the use of diagrams keeps it engaging
  • Each subheading is chosen and highlighted well
  • A very extensive reference list, making it evident that you have researched your topic thoroughly!

Cons

  • Use of diagrams and photos in the introductory parts of your page will make your page much more engaging
  • You may have extensive information but its not too concise. At a glance of your page, all you see are huge jumbles of words, and if you read the information, it needs to be summarized a lot more
  • Photos in Surgery and Fertility Drugs can make it more interesting and it can help you explain them more on what it looks like and whats involved using a single image
  • The use of the video explanation is also very good, but keep in mind that this page isn’t really aimed for people with minimal knowledge on cancer cells, but those trying to extend their knowledge, so they would already know about cancer cells. (Less is more)
  • Use a table in Chemotherapy Drugs can make long lists look much better
  • Reserve subheadings for your bold keywords underneath “Fertility preservation in women” instead of just bold type, it will look much more organized

15

Hey guys been working hard I see, Lots of information, well referenced (chemotherapy section pending) and really interesting stuff. The layouts a bit hard to follow, I’d suggest dropping things down a heading level so that, example, infertility was the heading, with page beak. And targeted drugs surgery etc. wear a third level head and just bold. At times the page seems to go off on a tangent such as how chemo is administered. Try to tie it in with what relation it has on onco-fertility or consider leaving it out and just linking to further information on the subject. For the above to points have a look at a wiki page that also deals with a dense subject like the world war 2 page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II look at what they’ve done to group the information and break out blocks of text. The list of drugs at the end would go much nicer into a table after leading in with the text. I recommend you rotate you tables too so that they read left to right rather than top to bottom ie switch rows and columns and then put the data into bullet list in each table area rather than dashing out the excess space. Most of the images are great and interesting (oocytes and tissues), Some don’t add much to the page (DNA breaks, Lady get intravenous). Have a look through them and think about whether the image provides any extra information, assists understanding of topic or is eye-catching, attention grabbing, if it doesn’t do one of the three grab another image. Consider adding some hyperlinks to the sites glossary and other pages of site key words. It’s all there and the information’s really good. If you work out the formatting so the text is easily digestible you’ll have a great page.

16

wow, you guys have obviously done a huge amount of work and this is apparent in your wiki pages extensive information. So far you have used great images and a very useful video.Your page could use a little more structure in the way of sub headings and perhaps restructure some of your rather confusing tables.

For the extensive amount of work that you have done, I would have expected more sources, just be careful with the citation of your images as well . Ensure that you correctly code all of your references so that multiple references to the same topic generate only one reference

While your extensive research and hard work is reflected in the quantity of your work it appears very content heavy, perhaps you could summaries some of you findings  into graphs, tables or bullets points (instead of  -  ) to make it easier to read. For instance under types of chemotherapy drugs you could put the findings into a table (description, advantages and disadvantages) and under the" how does chemotherapy work" I would expect a procedure outlining the method used.  

You have really good video and images selected so far, but there is no hand drawn image. my recommendation is to review you current images selected and identify if you could possibly draw on of them or find a new one to draw. I would also encourage you to think about you image placement. You talk about the development briefly about the historical context, I suggest making this a sub heading and incorporating animal models with associated supporting images as well the first documented human successful cases, you could also incorporate a hand drawn image somehow here. Gob work on the whole! It's very apparent how hard you worked

17

This Group Project covers a wide breadth of topics in a very easy to understand manner. The types of chemotherapy treatments or drugs for example, were very easy to read and understand. The various tables and histological slides employed also make for an interesting and easy to digest wikipedia article. The visual aids detailing the IVF process was also well appreciated and balanced well with the text.

However, I feel that in general there should be more visual media to accompany the text. An issue of a current image I have (patient undergoing chemotherapy) is that I don't think it adds much to the wikipedia page and is not informative. Furthermore, I was hoping there would be an introduction to the wikipedia page that would explicitly detail what it aims to cover. This would provide more structure and give a logical flow to the wikipedia page. Another way to improve the logical flow, is to subdivide sections into male and female (e.g. surgeries and drugs, the transition from surgeries for males to drugs for female infertility was abrupt and disorienting). The top half of the page may be made less verbose through the use of more jargon e.g. in the Radiation section "cells can't grow and divide" etc. Naturally, a glossary is also a convenient reference point that may be included.

Also, there is an imbalance in detail with more input within cancer cells section than other sections more directly relevant in ART including IVF. However, I do understand this Group Project is still a work in progress. Overall, there is a lot of potential in the wikipedia page.