Difference between revisions of "Talk:2017 Group Project 3"

From Embryology
Line 112: Line 112:
  
 
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.  
 
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.  
 +
 +
----
 +
 +
*Introduction
 +
**Introduction is clear with explanation on why the group decided to focus on heart as well as a brief outline of the page.
 +
 +
*Developmental origin
 +
**Good use of images that are relevant in explaining the developmental origin of the heart. References are also made to the figures. However, captions for the images are missing so it is unclear as to which is figure 2 that the author is making reference to.
 +
**Clear explanation that is easy to understand.
 +
 +
*Developmental timeline
 +
**Good use of a table in summarising the embryonic developmental timeline of heart.
 +
**Elaboration for the development of heart during each week is also clear and extensive. A suggestion would be to include the week i.e. “Week 2: primary heart field and heart tube formation” for the subheadings as it can get confusing easily having to scroll back to the table.
 +
**Some references are missing.
 +
**Some images are well labeled but some are not.
 +
 +
*Developmental signaling processes
 +
**Clear explanation that is coupled with images that are relevant to developmental signaling processes.
 +
 +
*Future questions
 +
**The questions listed seem abrupt. Author may want to consider including the significance and need to further investigate these questions.
 +
 +
*Glossary of terms
 +
**Author may want to consider arranging the glossaries in alphabetical order. Otherwise, good inclusion of a list of terms.
 +
 +
----
  
 
''For example:''
 
''For example:''

Revision as of 15:21, 12 October 2017

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  
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.

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.

Cardiovascular Links: cardiovascular | Heart Tutorial | Lecture - Early Vascular | Lecture - Heart | Movies | 2016 Cardiac Review | heart | coronary circulation | heart valve | heart rate | Circulation | blood | blood vessel | blood vessel histology | heart histology | Lymphatic | ductus venosus | spleen | Stage 22 | cardiovascular abnormalities | OMIM | 2012 ECHO Meeting | Category:Cardiovascular
Historic Embryology - Cardiovascular 
1902 Vena cava inferior | 1905 Brain Blood Vessels | 1909 Cervical Veins | 1909 Dorsal aorta and umbilical veins | 1912 Heart | 1912 Human Heart | 1914 Earliest Blood-Vessels | 1915 Congenital Cardiac Disease | 1915 Dura Venous Sinuses | 1916 Blood cell origin | 1916 Pars Membranacea Septi | 1919 Lower Limb Arteries | 1921 Human Brain Vascular | 1921 Spleen | 1922 Aortic-Arch System | 1922 Pig Forelimb Arteries | 1922 Chicken Pulmonary | 1923 Head Subcutaneous Plexus | 1923 Ductus Venosus | 1925 Venous Development | 1927 Stage 11 Heart | 1928 Heart Blood Flow | 1935 Aorta | 1935 Venous valves | 1938 Pars Membranacea Septi | 1938 Foramen Ovale | 1939 Atrio-Ventricular Valves | 1940 Vena cava inferior | 1940 Early Hematopoiesis | 1941 Blood Formation | 1942 Truncus and Conus Partitioning | Ziegler Heart Models | 1951 Heart Movie | 1954 Week 9 Heart | 1957 Cranial venous system | 1959 Brain Arterial Anastomoses | Historic Embryology Papers | 2012 ECHO Meeting | 2016 Cardiac Review | Historic Disclaimer

PubMed Searches: Heart Development | Cardiac Development

BMC Dev Biol Search: Heart Development

Recent papers

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

Group Topic Intro

Peer Review

Peer review project 3:

Some general comments to the project:

  • 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 adding a treatment part to project is a good but I could not find it in the project. As mentioned some context is missing, which is 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 to 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. Some of the home made drawing is not very descriptive
  • 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 sections the articles/or links are 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 I am 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.
  • An idea for your project could be that you add a short anatomy section after the introduction, so the reader gets a picture and an overview of how the heart is structured. Then it is easier to understand the developing of the heart when you know how the heart is going to end up looking like.

---

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.

--- Very informative and well written wiki. The glossary of terms is particularly useful and presented beautifully. The frequent addition of images and hand-made drawings are really good as they provide a useful visual reference point. The inclusion of a brief overview about the different animals studied in regards to the heart is very interesting. There is a minor spelling error in the table referring to Developmental timeline (week 5). The use of references is great, however maybe just include the links at the bottom of the wiki, to assist with the flow of information. Also add a description of your images so that viewers can more easily identify how the image relates to the text and the relevance of it. Overall, a really good wiki and well done.


The project is very good. There is a lot information on the page, there is a good description of each picture when you click on them, and there is a good brief introduction of each topic before going into depth on certain points. Most things are described clearly with pictures to support the information. Ending the project with a glossary of terms adds clarity to the project.

In particular, the “Developmental Signalling Processes” section is excellent. There is a description of where molecules are expressed, what cells they act on, the molecules’ roles in the cell signalling pathway on individual cells, and the molecules’ roles in overall heart development. The table describing different types of FGF signalling is excellent. In this section and throughout the project, there is a lot of description of research that has led to the discovery of the information presented on this page. The section “Animal Models” and “Current Research and Findings” add to this.

There are still a couple things to be fixed before the project is complete. There are some grammatical and spelling errors, particularly in “Proepicardium and Coronary Heart Development” that need to be edited. Some subheadings have nothing under them. Some references need to be fixed. Copyright information is needed when you click on some of the pictures. Instead of just using a paragraph style, emphasizing information by bolding specific words or using bulleted information may make the project easier to read and understand. Near the beginning of the project, a picture of the locations of the truncus arteriosus, bulbus cordis, primitive ventricle, and primitive atrium in the heart tube may add to the description of early development. In addition, a description of valve development could add to the project. Overall very good project.

---

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 developmental process of the Heart.
  • Perhaps it would be better to include relevant background information of the heart (such as blood flow and structure) before delving 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, such as in Developmental Origin where in the text you referred to the images “In figure 2…” and “See figure 4” but the images were not labelled so it was difficult to tell which images you were referring to.
  • The table on the Development Timeline was short and concise which was good however it would be better to insert images in the different stages to make it easier to visualise.
  • Most parts were cited correctly and properly, however some parts need to be fixed; the Pubmed article reference by “Antoon Moorman” appears in several sections of the page and needs to be deleted. Most sections had a good amount of references, however some sections weren't cited at all such as "Current Research and Findings and "Cardiac Stem Cells".
  • Some sections were left blank (The Notch Pathway, Sonic Hedgehog, and Retinoic Acid) which gives the page an unfinished feel, 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.


  • Introduction
    • Introduction is clear with explanation on why the group decided to focus on heart as well as a brief outline of the page.
  • Developmental origin
    • Good use of images that are relevant in explaining the developmental origin of the heart. References are also made to the figures. However, captions for the images are missing so it is unclear as to which is figure 2 that the author is making reference to.
    • Clear explanation that is easy to understand.
  • Developmental timeline
    • Good use of a table in summarising the embryonic developmental timeline of heart.
    • Elaboration for the development of heart during each week is also clear and extensive. A suggestion would be to include the week i.e. “Week 2: primary heart field and heart tube formation” for the subheadings as it can get confusing easily having to scroll back to the table.
    • Some references are missing.
    • Some images are well labeled but some are not.
  • Developmental signaling processes
    • Clear explanation that is coupled with images that are relevant to developmental signaling processes.
  • Future questions
    • The questions listed seem abrupt. Author may want to consider including the significance and need to further investigate these questions.
  • Glossary of terms
    • Author may want to consider arranging the glossaries in alphabetical order. Otherwise, good inclusion of a list of terms.

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.

---

Well-structured page which seems to be quite detailed and long to read. The extensive use of subheadings make it a little harder to follow in some areas such as under “Developmental timeline”, where after the table the subheading “Primary Heart Field and…” appears to be a little misplaced or is lacking flow completely. Need to remove the student numbers from the page and also the two links under the initial “Heart” heading. In text referencing throughout the page seems to be consistent for the most part however, there are some areas where the correct format needs to be used (i.e., under “Wnt signaling” and “Cardiac Neural Crest and Outflow tract”). Some images do have a description of what is addressed however, many of them do not – this expansion would help with the overall reading experience as well as add further information for understanding. Overall, an extensive knowledge of the topic is well demonstrated through an attention to detail – but perhaps a more concise approach would add some clarity to the text.

---

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.

---

Great detailing of the development and signaling processes involved, it really showed me that the group had extensive knowledge on this topic. In addition, there is a good balance of personal images (e.g. wnt signaling diagram) and web images which showed me that the group dedicated time to make sure the reader fully understood each aspect of the topic. Most images also are properly cited with copyright statements, references, and description (some are missing, but overall are done well). It was very helpful to include a glossary of terms at the end for the reader to refer to. An image for the cardiac looping steps would help to visualize steps. Information needs to be added for the notch pathway, sonic hedgehog, retinoic acid. While the detail is very informative, there is a lot of information and can be a little overwhelming. It might help to add more bullet points (with only essential information) or to edit some of the superfluous information. In addition, captions for the images would help so that the reader knows which image you’re referring to when referring to them in the text.

--- 'Introduction' is clear and informative, well referenced and gives a good outline for the rest of the page. 'Developmental Origin' has a bit of a confusing set up.. pictures are seemingly scattered and need captions. The 'Morphology of the Heart tube formation' hand-drawn figure is almost an exact replica of the original.. not sure if this is allowed because they are so similar. 'Developmental Timeline' has a very brief table.. would benefit from a better description of each week of development. This section has a couple of random references that should be at the bottom. 'Developmental Signalling Processes' diagrams need captions. There is a lot of information here which is very detailed. 'Current Research and Findings' has good subheadings and picture use; pictures need to have copyright information and citations added. Very detailed with good references throughought. 'Future Questions' needs to be added to but has shown evidence of initial research into this area. 'Glossary of terms' is a very good idea that has not yet been shown in other group topics. Maybe look into researching how to link certain words in the article to redirect to the bottom of the page to the Glossary of terms for quick definitions? Some references also need to be properly cited in the 'References' section. Over all, really well researched with some sections needing a bit more work.

---

Overall a very in-depth page with most of the required subjects covered. Some general notes; the figures would have benefited from appropriate captions but were helpful nonetheless. Referencing and overall visual formatting could be improved. The page is written well and enjoyable to read.

"Primary heart field and heart tube formation" could benefit from a diagram or figure since it is a lot of text that could be hard to conceptualise. The signalling processes are explained very well and in deep detail. Just a note though; the addressing of so many different variables in the signalling is a little confusing and hard to follow. Perhaps a more condensed response might be a little more straightforward. The diagram of the signalling pathways under "Wnt Signalling" was likewise hard to follow, and no key was given. Current Research and Animal Models were covered well and the explanation for their research and the key results highlighted were fascinating. Abnormal development was likewise addressed very well and the glossary of terms was very much appreciated.

--- - Introduction was very well written and great spelling and grammar. Good referencing, simple way to start a page

- Developmental origin of the heart was explained well and I liked how they referenced to the figure in the text as well, showing that the picture is actually important in this section. Correct referencing was used in this section which is good. A moving video of developmental origin of the heart would have been really useful here

- Developmental timeline was a bit too brief, and would help to put some pictures to explain how some of the main steps looked like

- Further explanation of the development was separated and structured well and had good amount of information for each main step. Citation of the reference shouldn’t be here but in the references

- A nice picture was used to explain the difference between straight, looped and converged which I personally found very interesting and informative

- The drawings included were very well drawn, precise and different colours helped differentiate each part of the heart and also referenced.

- I really liked the developmental signalling processes and they had explained each important factor of the process in a lot of detail. Would have been good if they had finished this section. A good use of table to differentiate different FGF and their functions

- Current research and findings selected were definitely very new and also explained in a lot of depth

- Abnormalities section was slightly lacking, although there is good information, adding 3 or 4 more abnormalities would be even better. Some pictures in this section would have made it more interesting and explain the content better.

- Overall, a very nicely set out page with good information in each section and appropriate referencing in most parts. Inclusion of glossary and a large variety of subheadings made this page great. Some further work in some subheadings would make this page perfect.


- I think your intro was really good because it was very straight to the point and gave a great summary of your project as a whole. - Developmental origins was well done, not too complex. The diagrams definitely helped break down this complex model. I have seen some helpful videos online that summarise this process, so maybe you could add a video to it? Just because it is still a lot to grasp and if the person is anything like me, they'll find videos more helpful than the diagrams (but your choice of pictures were great and good referencing). The placement of the pictures looks a bit wonky, but I don't think it's something you have control of. - Developmental timeline table was a bit brief, I think more detail needs to be added to it because the rest of the developmental section has a lot of content; the table should summarise it all so someone can have a quick idea of it all rather than having to read the whole section which is quite lengthy. Good job for having a table in the first place though. The diagrams in this section were relevant and well sized. Once again, a video would be nice but that's just me. Some referencing errors, but that can be easily fixed. - Great work on the signalling section, it's really complex so I'm sure that would have been a mission to collate however I think it could be less wordy just because it is so hard to follow at times. You've done a lot of research which is great, but maybe shortening it a bit would be more beneficial to readers. Again, videos could help. Good use of the table to summarise it all. I can see that it's not finished, but it seems like you guys know where to go with it. Good referencing. - I think your abnormal development section was well done, it wasn't too overwhelming and it is very detailed with proper referencing and suitable pictures. - The stem cells section seemed a bit random to me because it wasn't mentioned in the intro. If it falls under "the possible treatments to be developed in the future", perhaps you could address that in the first sentence because right now it just seems like hey here's some info on stem cells... and I'm here wondering what the relevance of this is. Seems well researched though, just need to state its relevance. - Future questions a bit empty. - Glossary is great, maybe you could have a glossary for the signalling part too

Overall it is clear that you guys have put in a lot of time and effort, so well done on that. At times though, it just feels a bit overwhelming. There's good use of diagrams an tables, but I think the amount of content still needs to be a bit more concise. Your referencing for the most part is really good, however some parts in the development section are different, but it's nothing that can't be easily fixed. Overall, good job!

---

  • Introduction
    • Justification of chosen topic was an interesting approach
  • Developmental signalling processes
    • Links between explored processes and heart development were made by could be more explicitly presented
  • Current research and findings
    • May have been too extensive at times
      • Felt like there was un-needed focus on methods used in the explored projects. Section could be streamlined to have less focus on methods and more highlighting of results of experiments presented
  • Overall, well-structured and well written. However:
    • Minor grammatical errors present throughout the page
    • Some diagrams lacked descriptions and figure legends/abbreviation definitions – diagrams should be self-explanatory and be understandable in combination with their descriptions, when taken out of their contexts within the page
    • Remember to remove zIDs before final submission