Talk:2017 Group Project 3

Student Projects: 1 Cerebral Cortex | 2 Kidney | 3 Heart | 4 Eye | 5 Lung | 6 Cerebellum
Student Page - here is the sample page I demonstrated with in the first labs.I remind all students that you have your own Group Forum on Moodle for your discussions, it is only accessible by members of your group.
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

I have now added a discussion Forum for your group to Moodle. You can add your discussion here (available to everyone) or in your Moodle Group Discussion (available to only your group members).

The collapsible table below shows the assessment criteria that will be used for this group project.

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

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

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

Plagiarism  First Read the help page Copyright Tutorial Currently all students originally assigned to each group are listed as equal authors/contributors to their project. If you have not contributed the content you had originally agreed to, nor participated in the group work process, then you should contact the course coordinator immediately and either discuss your contribution or request removal from the group author list. Remember that all student online contributions are recorded by date, time and the actual contributed content. A similar email reminder of this information was sent to all current students. Please note the Universities Policy regarding Plagiarism "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.

About the Discussion Page

This should be considered as the "other side" of the project page. It is an area where you can:

1. Assemble resources.
2. Add useful links.
3. Discuss your project with team members. (Please do not use student names on any page on this Wiki)
4. Paste your Peer Assessments. (Added anonymously, do not identify yourself)

Suggested Starting Places

Mark Hill (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2017 (AEST) OK Group 3 below are some starting places.

PubMed Searches: Heart Development | Cardiac Development

BMC Dev Biol Search: Heart Development

Recent papers

<pubmed limit=5>Heart+Development</pubmed>

Peer Review

Peer review group 3

• The project contained both developmental origin, timeline, signalling processes, current research and findings, animals model and abnormal development sections. The project therefore has all the sections which were a requirement for the project.
• Overall, I think the project was good. It was well written, easy to understand as a student, the sections correlated well and the context was good. I especially liked the signalling section, even though some context is missing. I think the idea of of addition a treatment part to project is a good but I could not find it in the project. As mentioned some context is missing in the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog and retinoic acid sections.
• The project has a good introduction. You have a clear idea of what you are about the read, which is nice.
• The layout could be a lot better, I think the picture location could be adjusted. In the developmental origin part, the pictures make the section look very confusing. Some of the subheadings, like the abnormal development is pushed to side by the pictures, so when you scroll down the project you miss it.
• In general, the pictures miss their caption, sources and number. Therefore, you do not know which picture there is referred to when you are reading the project. I miss some more pictures in the developmental sections.
• In the developmental origin section I think the last sentence is very long. You get so much information in one sentence that you sometimes forget what you just read.
• The timeline is easy to read and understand. Could contain some key discoveries.
• Thought the glossary of terms is a nice addition to the project.
• Overall the referencing is good, but in some sections like primary heart field and heart tube formation, the referencing is missing. In some parts the articles/or links is at the bottom of the section, which makes it a little confusing.
• I don’t feel like the primary heart field and heart tube formation correlates very well with the secondary heart field and cardiac looping section. When I start reading the latter I feel like om starting on something completely new instead of continuing reading on the heart developing. I get the feeling I am reading two different persons work, and some work should be put into these sections to make it feel more fluent.

---

Don’t forget to remove the hyperlinks that are under ‘Heart’ at the beginning of the page. Remove student numbers from the page. Add a brief description under images so that readers will understand what the image is showing. Remember to move references that are written in some sections to the ‘References’ subheading. The Notch Pathway is incomplete.

Subheadings and content that have been used show a good understanding of the topic area. The use of a table for the ‘Development Timeline’ shows the teams innovativeness. The use of simple sentences in the table allows readers to understand content simply. References have been done well, they are cited properly. The team have used their own images to show their understanding of the heart. The images that they have used have been properly cited: there are references, copyright statements and the Student Image template. Thorough description of abnormal development, animal models and current research which shows the comprehensive research that was done for the heart. The use of Glossary of Terms is helpful to readers who may not understand what some terms are.

---

Use of headings and subheadings break this complex developmental process in to understandable, clear sections. The images chosen to reinforce the material are appropriate and I particularly like that time has been taken to draw a number of these. There does seem to be an awful lot of information, and I wonder if this can be cut down at all. For example there is the section on signaling during development, which is a more complex section to understand. This is greatly helped by the diagrams but I can see that there are additional headings that are yet to have information added. It might be an idea to pick a few signaling pathways that occur and really perfect those. I think it has the potential to become very confusing to the reader otherwise. It is very useful to the reader that you have included a glossary of terms, however I wonder if it may be more effective if this table is placed at the beginning of the page, or as a link at the top that can be opened up, so as the reader can familirise themselves with the terms prior to reading the page. The page appears to be referenced extensively throughout and appropriately. Good job

---

Overall, this page has a good structure and was enjoyable to read. The headings and subheadings were clear and made it easier to understand the development process of the Heart. Perhaps it would be better to include relevant background information of the heart before jumping into the developmental process straightaway. There is a good amount of images (and well-drawn images) accompanying the text which aided in understanding the content, however some were not labelled with their appropriate descriptions. Most parts were cited correctly and properly, however some areas weren't cited at all such as "Current Research and Findings and "Cardiac Stem Cells". Also, some references were not done properly, check the "Primary Heart Field and Heart Tube Formation" section. Some sections were left blank, however I assume they will be completed over time. Glossary of terms was clever and made the content easier to understand (the heart is quite complicated to understand). Well done overall.

---

Overall, this page had a finished feel because the page is so heavily packed with information, there are some sections that were not completed. There is however, a lot of information that may leave the reader feeling a bit overwhelmed. Some sections are also hard to understand and comprehend especially due to the heavy use of biotechnological jargon (ie. SMAD-dependent, SMAD-independent pathways, β-catenin). A terminology/glossary section would be extremely helpful for this issue. I'd advise using more images in "Abnormal Development" (ie. x-rays or physical observations of sufferers) to help the reader visualise such abnormalities. Referencing under images should be moved to the references section and should be referenced using the < ref > < / ref > if in text. Overall, there is a lot of information, some of which is not necessarily important. I'd advise to cut down, make paragraphs more simple and straight to the point, and use images to help the reader visually understand and comprehend.

---

Introduction is very good and explains a lot. Under the heading “Primary heart field and heart tube formation” – the reference at the bottom should be removed. Secondary heart field and cardiac looping: First sentence doesn’t really make sense, maybe switch it up a bit. Under current research and findings you have labelled a figure figure 1, when it is not the first figure in your wiki page, seems a little confusing. Images also don’t have appriopriate copyright info, description and referencing. Also figure 2 is placed right in the middle of the sentence, maybe put it to the right so it doesn’t interrupt reading. Information could be formatted better under the heading atrial septal defect! Maybe some subheadings for the different defects? Same goes with the ventricular septal defect, its easier to read when things are broken up. Glossary is very good!

All the information written on your page is very well written and easily understood. Images could be labelled better, add a figure to each of them as when you are referring to figure 1 and 2 in your writing, the images aren’t labelled so its hard to tell what image you are referring to. With references, I don’t like how there is a bunch at the end of some headings? Could be because you still need to read them but looks messy. There is an overwhelming amount of information, so good job on doing so much research but it was quite tedious to read, not sure if this much information is needed? But it is very hard to fault your wiki page so this might be a bit picky.

---

The introduction is a brief and clear overview of the page. I liked how you acknowledged what your page will explore about the heart development. The “Developmental origin” subheading had good information and good diagrams in addition. However, I would adjust your layout a bit in this section so that the diagrams don’t look so awkward. You could do this by breaking down that second paragraph. The timeline provided a brief overview but I would also suggest adding another column for images. There is also a spelling error on week 5 – it says “srtats” where it should be “starts”. As you go into “primary heart field and heart tube formation”, “secondary heart field and cardiac looping” and the next few sections, the references appear at the bottom of the sections. You should fix this so that they only appear in the reference list at the end. You could also probably bold “heart tube fusion”, “heart looping” and other terms in your developmental timeline since you explore them in depth. The “developmental signalling process” subheading is very detailed. Since you also have a few more parts to complete into this section, it might be better to try to minimise some of the text. Your inclusion of current research is good and unique as you explore one paper in depth. However, I would suggest that you find another one or two. The “animal models” subheading should probably have a diagram or two of the referenced research papers if possible. Again with “abnormal development” subheading I would suggest some more images to see what these defects look like and possibly cutting down some text. In “future questions” you might also be able to provide a possible direction research might take to potentially answer this question. Also, you had a very good, long list of references.

---

The page goes through everything required for the project page. It would be nice if the pictures on the page have a figure number and a short title on the figures, so it is easier for the reader to understand what figure belongs to what part of the section. A figure number on the picture makes it able for the writer to refer to a specific picture. There is a good use of tables and self-drawn figures/picture. This makes the page clearer and more readable. There are some references on the page that needs a different formatting, so it is not fully viewed in the sections. It is important that the references are given right after the specific section and not at the bottom of the section.

• The Introduction section gives a good excitement for the reader before reading the page. This gives an idea of what information to expect from the page. A little section about the anatomy of the heart and a picture could give a better preparation for the reader to understand the developmental part of the heart.
• The Development Origin section has a bit confusing layout.
• I like that the Cardiac Neural Crest and Outflow tract sections have a self-drawn picture, but maybe you can draw it a bit clearer, so it is easier to read the writing and understand the figure There is no figure text on the page of the figure.
• Current Research And Findings, Animal Models and Abnormal Development: These sections have a bit of a messy layout. The context is good, but there I a lot of text and pictures kind of mingling into each other. You could make these sections more separate in the layout.
• The Glossary of terms helps the reader a lot.

---

The headings were all neat, concise and impressive. It successfully highlighted and sectioned the key topics in the development of the heart. The addition of the technical signalling pathways and the details of the development were well summarised with appropriate references in superscript format. There was a nice variety of visual resources, both hand drawn and externally sourced. Most images have their copyright approval and reference included perfectly, except "Figure 1 Morphological defects in CTCF mutant embryonic hearts" and "Figure 2 - defects of mitochondria in CTCF mutant hearts". There was a nice flow throughout the page through the use of effective paragraph sectioning. The table for the glossary of terms was really useful and neat.

Some of the images didn't have a box around it and these figures were not labelled, this should be easily changed in the edit mode. Some of the hand drawn images were somewhat unclear, due to the writing as well as the rough outline of the heart. Signatures should also be removed. The references were also retained in the bottom of the sections. It was a confusing because it wasn't next to any paragraphs that needed to be referenced. A reference was also repeated in this section.

For example: "This image is based upon Robert H Anderson, Sandra Webb, Nigel A Brown, Wouter Lamers, Antoon Moorman Development of the heart: (3) formation of the ventricular outflow tracts, arterial valves, and intrapericardial arterial trunks. Heart: 2003, 89(9);1110-8 PubMed 12923046

Robert H Anderson, Sandra Webb, Nigel A Brown, Wouter Lamers, Antoon Moorman Development of the heart: (3) formation of the ventricular outflow tracts, arterial valves, and intrapericardial arterial trunks. Heart: 2003, 89(9);1110-8 PubMed 12923046

Marc Sylva, Maurice J B van den Hoff, Antoon F M Moorman Development of the human heart. Am. J. Med. Genet. A: 2014, 164A(6);1347-71 PubMed 23633400"

Finally, there is a great variety of reputable sources of information. The only thing that needs changing is that the reference list should be revised. Some were left as a link and the list were inconsistent with its reference format.

---

This wikipage had all the sections required for this assignment and the team was very detailed in their content. There was also a good amount of referencing. However for certain areas, the entire reference was there instead of just the number. Also, the student numbers should be removed from the page. There was also a good number of photos used and it was good that they had a mix between self-drawn images and images obtained online. However, a way that could improve the images would be to add a description or a caption under each figure so it's easier to know what the picture is about. Some photos in this article lacked description, reference and copyright information, so that could be added as well. For most of the article, I can see that the team carried out a great amount of research for this topic, however it was a little difficult to understand some parts as they were very lengthy and slightly too content heavy. For the developmental timeline, the use of a table was good but the information could be presented in a more concise manner and the headings could be slightly more prominent to make it more readable. The signalling processes was also very well researched but quite lengthy, perhaps a few main signalling pathways could be chosen instead. For the abnormal developments, each abnormalities were well researched on. Perhaps images could be added to show the abnormalities and also maybe one or two more defects would be good. Overall, I think this group did a great job in researching and providing information on this wikipage. Maybe with a bit of tweaking here and there to make it more concise and readable, this wikipage would make a really good project.

---

The introduction was very good! I like how it introduced why the heart is so critical in early development, explained what you were going to discuss and where there would be gaps due to a lack of medical knowledge. The information in developmental origin and the developmental timeline is really great, however, I think you need to consider joining these two headings and not splitting them into one. You also state in developmental origin "as seen in figure two", however, none of your images have figure titles so I am not sure which figure you're actually referring to. The timeline is a good basic reference point, so I think it would be nice for it to be before the origin outline as it gives the basics which you then go into more detail about. I like that you put in the developmental signalling processes and then outlined each one of these, obviously the rest of those processes that have subheadings but no information just need to be finished. The current research is really interesting, again images just need a figure of some sort. The future questions section is a little confusing as I'm not sure if that's an area you're going to go into more depth over or if that's a future question you think research should look in to? So a clarification would be good. The glossary of terms is super helpful and all referencing looks good!

---

At first glance this project seems very detailed and lengthy. In my opinion, it could have too much text and maybe summarizing and condensing some sections could be beneficial. Collapsible windows or maybe more use of subheadings or dot points could be used to make the page clearer and less overwhelming. The diagrams and tables are very engaging and informative. However I do think the position and sizing of the diagrams could be improved to align it with the text better. The text and most of the diagrams seem to be well referenced. Another suggestion for this page would be to make the overall title of ‘Heart’ larger and clearer, perhaps include a diagram of the heart with the title to make it more attractive. The overall title should also be placed above the contents section. Despite these suggestions, well done this page is very detailed and informative and you have clearly put a lot of work and effort into it.