Talk:2017 Group Project 5

From Embryology
Revision as of 12:55, 19 November 2017 by Z8600021 (talk | contribs) (General)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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)


Assessment

General

  • 10 assessment criteria demonstrated with some exceptions.
  • Good balance of text and media. I liked the use of tables and images on the project page.
    • I could suggest that the project needed some sort of conclusion or overview at the end.
  • Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology.
  • Peer teaching - language and structure appropriate for audience level.
  • YouTube video overview of the development of the respiratory system was a good inclusion and good animation.
    • could have been inserted into project page in larger format for in-page viewing.
  • Developmental signalling processes an important inclusion to project.
    • only one image in this section outlined in any detail the signalling process.
    • needed perhaps some additional signaling pathway images.
  • Abnormalities - had concise coverage of some of the respiratory abnormalities.
    • Formatting - CPAM (Congenital Pulmonary Airway Malformation) this heading should have been the other way around "Congenital Pulmonary Airway Malformation (CPAM)", it is usual to put the acronym after the text that it replaces.
  • Glossary - clearly organised table structure. Easy to read with good brief descriptions.
    • Not all project terminology has been included.
  • Referencing - mostly correctly cited and referenced, multiple citations appear correctly in the list, some errors in list.
    • why were there 9 reference links inserted at the beginning of the list? These appear as numbered references but are not associated with any content.
    • Some recent references (6 - 2017) cited, but several in the above reference list.
    • Many embryology textbooks cited as sources in the list.
    • Good coverage of research literature.
    • Not sure why for example "Hyaline membrane disease" used 1960's and 70's references.

Edits

Total - 381

  • Z5062492 - 137
  • Z5114217 - 96
  • Z5076351 - 59
  • Z5059373 - 52
  • Z5178462 - 37


Edit History Note

  • Both the Project and Discussion pages are now locked and cannot be edited. Please email me if you have additional comments or edits concerning the project and individual contributions.
  • This edit analysis is not a quantitation of individual student overall contribution, but is used to identify low contribution students and the ongoing contribution component.
  • Group Edit Comparison - Group 1 (855) Group 2 (452) Group 3 (583) Group 4 (399) Group 5 (381) Group 6 (604)

Images

  • Z5059373 - 5 images
  • Z5062492 - 4 images (1 UNSW) and UNSW videos. at least 2 of your uploaded images (cartoons) have no details of source or copyright.
  • Z5178462 - 3 images
  • Z3332339 - 1 image


  • z5062492 Videos that were taken from Mark Hill's Respiratory System page - Gastrointestinal 3D stage 13 Movie, Gastrointestinal Tract 3D stage 22 Movie
  • z5062492 Image taken from ANAT2241 Histology Respiratory histology 08.jpg
  • Z5062492 - at least 2 of your uploaded images (cartoons) have no details of source or copyright. If they are your own drawings, it should say so in the summary box. I cannot assess these figures without this information. I have generally deleted such images from project pages.

Images General Notes

  • Single review source used for multiple images 5,6,8 (Z5059373) This is allowed but also suggests that you have not looked widely in the literature.

Suggested Starting Places

Mark Hill (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2017 (AEST) OK Group 5 below are some starting places.

Respiratory Links: respiratory | Science Lecture | Lecture Movie | Med Lecture | Stage 13 | Stage 22 | upper respiratory tract | diaphragm | Histology | Postnatal | respiratory abnormalities | Respiratory Quiz | Respiratory terms | Category:Respiratory
Historic Embryology  
1902 The Nasal Cavities and Olfactory Structures | 1906 Lung | 1912 Upper Respiratory Tract | 1912 Respiratory | 1914 Phrenic Nerve | 1918 Respiratory images | 1921 Respiratory | 1922 Chick Pulmonary Vessels | 1934 Right Fetal Lung | 1936 Early Human Lung | 1937 Terminal Air Passages | 1938 Human Histology

PubMed Searches: Lung Development | Respiratory Development

BMC Dev Biol Search: Lung Development

Recent papers

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


Peer Review

This paper is divided into logical categories and has very good layout. The student drawings are all good, and the developmental timeline is very informative. Most images are well-referenced and have the appropriate Copyright, except the images in the 'Developmental signaling processes' section which lack a description and Copyright. The "Structure of Respiratory Network", "Developmental signalling processes", "Research" and "Animal models" sections of the page lack in-text citations and thus lack credibility.

The use of movies is very clever and helpful provided using content off the UNSW Embryology Wiki page is permitted. The layout of the entire page is very good, however the size of some of the images needs to change as they appear pixillated and blurry. Images could include a small description directly under them to direct the reader to what they are looking at. The references need to be fine tuned, and some grammatical errors need to be addressed. This page would benefit from a lengthier introduction leading in to lung development and a glossary list. Otherwise this is a very informative page!

---

Future questions and current research subheadings are incomplete. Don’t forget to add references, copyright statements and the student image template to each of the images that have been used on the wikipage. References should be used on Lung Histology to show the research that has been done. The animal models section is comprehensive but there are barely any references to show where the information was found.

Subheadings and content that have been used show a good understanding of the topic area. The team have used their own images to show their understanding. The team has used images in the ‘Developmental timeline’ table which shows comprehensive research. The images have brief descriptions below them, hence readers will be able to understand what the image is displaying. Important words in relation to the lung have been bolded. The abnormal development section is done comprehensively with references and images. References were cited properly, however there is an error on reference 20.

---

The project page is looking good. I particularly found the developmental timeline to be very informative and easy to follow. I like the fact that you have used a table here to display it along with diagrams that fit each stage, with each diagram being cited and referenced correctly. I think the diagram that is related to the histology section could be a little clearer to read as it is a little jumbled and slightly hard to distinguish everything. The section on developmental signaling processes is good, and gives the detail without making the section too long and complicated. ‘current understandings and areas of research’ has no information as of yet, it would be good to add some recent research papers with a short summary. The use of movies is helpful, but maybe consider moving them further up the page, to a more relevant section, the beginning of ‘developmental origin’ would be better. A glossary of terms would be helpful, as some of the jargon is complicated. There seems to be a citing error in the reference list that should be dealt with. Overall it is a very interesting topic and I think you have executed it well so far

---

The page is quite informative, however there are incomplete sections including the introduction and the last few topics towards the end. There is a clever use of self drawn images to avoid any copyright issues, but the lung histology image can be a bit hard to read due to the lack of contrast (the grey outline and font being a bit light to read) and the image itself is bit unclear (Is it a lateral view? cross sectional? towards the apex of the lung?). The bolding of main terms at the start of the page is a nice touch, it would work better if there was a glossary at the end of the page stating the bolded terms and their meaning. It would also be better if the rest of the page had their main terms bolded as well and added to the glossary. The movies section seemed a bit out of place and did not flow from the previous and next topics, it would be better to move them into the "developmental" topics. In the abnormal development and animal models sections, more images that correlate to each subheading would be advised to help the reader visualise the abnormalities or results instead of reading chunks of words. Such images could include x-rays, images of physical observations of sufferers, graphs and figures. Development of the lungs topics were easy to: follow, read and understand, which is extremely important. Ref 22 isn't stated properly.

---

The project has a very good lay-out and is written relatively clearly. The table with the developmental timeline and historical discoveries of those developmental stages is excellent and the images that go along with each stage are relevant and have a summary and the appropriate copyright information when you click on them. Some pictures on the page do not have the appropriate copyright information or a summary of them when clicking on them that still needs to be added. In-text citations need to be added to a lot of the sections. There are 7 in-text citations at the beginning of the references section that do not refer to any specific information that should be moved to the appropriate information.

The information in the project is good and you explain studies that have been done to determine this information throughout the project which is an effective way to describe past and current research. There is currently no information under “Current understandings and areas of research” and “Future questions,” but these headings could potentially just be eliminated.

The project is relatively clear but a couple things could be added, changed, or moved to add more clarity. There are some basic grammatical issues and spelling errors that can easily be fixed (e.g. “These branching structures involve are regulated by a network of signalling factors”). In “Developmental signalling processes,” adding whether each signalling molecule is either a ligand, receptor, or transcription factor (e.g. Sox9 is a transcription factor, SHH is a ligand, and HS-GAG is a receptor), what cells these molecules are expressed in, and which cells these molecules act on (if different than where they’re expressed) may make this section clearer. In “Animal Models” the introduction of mouse models would make more sense if there was an explanation of the mice used in the studies (i.e. what strains of mice are used, how are they genetically modified, do these mutations result in a KO, etc.) rather than just the genes being looked at.

Overall good project. Referencing needs to be fixed, summary and copyright information needs to be added to some pictures, and blank subheadings either need information or should be eliminated. The information in the project is good, the lay-out is good, the interspersed information about research is good, and the pictures support the information well.

---

  • This page is very informative, the headings and subheadings were highly appropriate and made the development process much easier to follow.
  • I liked how you provided the Anatomy, Histology and Vasculature of an Adult Lung, which provided a good amount of background knowledge before exploring the developmental process. Perhaps you could label the images with “Figure 1/2/3 ...” so you could easily refer to them in-text, such as “Figure 1 shows the anatomy of the adult lung” instead of “This diagram shows the anatomy of the adult lung”. Although this section was very informative, it seems to lack references.
  • The table on the Developmental Timeline was perfectly done, as it ties in the development with historical discoveries and had appropriate images to provide visual aid. Furthermore, this table has a good amount of references on it. Well done!
  • Although most sections were cited correctly, there is quite a few sections which did not have references at all (see “Structure of Respiratory Network” and “Lung Anatomy and Histology”) so it would be good to add them in to avoid plagiarism.
  • A good amount of images were used (images were very well drawn and easy to understand) and they were accompanied with relevant information. The Abnormal Development section was very informative, however it would be better to insert more images in this section as it is quite an important topic.
  • Future questions and Glossary were left blank and would be very useful if they were done but I assume that they would be completed with time. Overall, the page seems to have a good amount of information on it so far, well done.

---

This wiki page is very informative and a good read! When reading I noticed that the images don’t have a figure number, although this isn’t necessary, it can make it easy to refer to figures in text and therefore explain them better. For the heading lung histology, you can add proper dot points by adding an asterix before the information, this will make your page present better. Both headings future questions and current research need to be finished as they are incomplete. Using self drawn pictures makes your page easy to follow and understand, this is a great feature of your page. Copyright information is added well for the most part, however I found some images under the heading “Developmental signaling processes” which didn’t have any copyright information or an appropriate description, also make sure the student template is added at the end of every image description. I particularly enjoyed the timeline, it is very well written and is easy to understand. Good job on the project thus far.

---

A good page going through a lot of the main steps required for the project page, but the page needs a lot of references.

  • The Lung Anatomy, Histology, and Cardiovasculature sections give a good and short understanding of the lungs. The Histology part could need a better layout using the wiki-formatting. All the sections need references! There are almost no references in these sections. I like the big introduction to the lungs, but I am not sure how much it has to do with the embryonic development – especially the Histology part. The self-drawn pictures support the learning when reading, but they are a bit weak in colors. I must click on the figure and then zoom to read and see details of the figures. It would be nice if you can see details at the same time reading the project page. Maybe you should draw the pictures with a more colorful pen.
  • The developmental timeline is really detailed and has a lot of pictures to support the understanding. The images have the right information.
  • The Conducting System section has two pictures that need more information on the picture page – like copyright information. You can look on the image tutorial how do give a picture page proper information or look through some of the other sections on your group project.
  • Alveolus: the functional unit: This section explains a study about overweight in pregnancy, but does not give the reference of the study. It is important to tell the reader where you found this study.
  • Developmental signaling processes section gives a good, short description. Easy to read and understand. But both pictures are missing detailed information – also copyright information. You also mention “a recent study” without giving a reference to the study.
  • Current understandings and areas of research section is missing the context.
  • Animal Models section has a good context and a good setup but could use a brief introduction to what you are going to talk about. Maybe also a figure could be nice to support the reading. You also mention Bmp as a key pathway but does not explain much about it. Since it is mentioned in the short introduction, then the reader would expect that there will be more information about that specific pathway.
  • Abnormal Development is a really good section. It has a lot of references, is easy to read and understand, has the right information on the pictures, beautiful layout. I like that it gives a short understanding of the different abnormalities.

---

This page is really impressive when the hand drawn images caught my eye as well as the balanced text-to-images ratio. It is well organised and there was a decent flow throughout the page. It is useful that keywords were formatted to be in bold formatting to draw the attention of the readers to the main terms. The development timeline is very fascinating, it had a description as well as images. Summaries are well-informative as well as brief in some sections. Some images were reference properly and copyright approval was provided. Abnormal development was neatly organised into sections and appropriate journal articles for evidence. However, there are a few abnormalities that did not feature an image to provide more visual aid to the readers.

The 'Alveolus' was left in bold format while the rest were in normal format, this could be easily changed in the edit page. The hand drawn images did not provide a reference where it was based off. Also, one of the images has a very low resolution ("This image is a stylised typical developmental branching pattern over time in a lung bud."). The images should be encased in boxes and a label underneath would be neater. Laboratory results from the animal models would be useful to see. The lung histology section didn't provide any references. The movies section disrupts the flow of the sections, it might be best to place them at the bottom of the page.

This page seems like it is almost complete.

Revise the reference list. Some were left as links and the overall reference formatting was inconsistent. Some were left as APA format and some were left in another format. There was a cite error in one of the references as well.

---

Overall, this page has a good arrangement of information. For the lung anatomy, histology and cardiovasculature, the content is concise and good. The images were all self drawn and a lot of effort has been put to it. Good job to the person who did it. However, for the lung anatomy, histology and cardiovasculature, there are no references at all. Also, for the lung histology, perhaps adding in histological images and referencing it when writing the text would make the section better. The developmental timeline was also very well done. I love how all the information was presented in a table and was easy to follow through. The images had their copyright statements, brief overview and proper referencing. Again, there are no references for the structure of respiratory network and its sub sections and for the developmental signalling sections. Also, the images should be labelled as figure 1 or table 1 and could be mentioned in the text where appropriate. Perhaps a glossary could benefit this page. The abnormalities section was well referenced and there was a fair amount of abnormalities covered. Maybe more images could be added.

---

This page is very well-structured and demonstrates an extensive understanding of the topic at hand. I found the headings and subheadings easy to follow and contributes to a smooth flow of the page which had a very ‘step-by-step’ feel. References are fairly consistent throughout, however a significant amount of the areas are lacking any acknowledgement to research including the information under the subheading “Animal Models”, “Developmental signaling processes”, etc. Good use of diagrams, especially in depicting the anatomical and histological features of the lung and linking to key points on the timeline – I felt it accompanied the text really well and did not overcomplicate or confuse the concepts. Referring to these images as figures would enhance the quality of the writing overall. Perhaps a section on the functionality of lung structures or an expansion on the function of the layers would provide a good understanding of the topic – I found a lack of focus towards functional aspects overall (only mentioned briefly under “Lung Anatomy”). Entries into the glossary would have helped with understanding the text.

---

I don't like that first sentence above Lung Anatomy below the Lung heading. I feel like it is just dumped there so maybe try expanding on this a little bit and making it more into an introduction. The information in the lung anatomy is really good, and that drawing is too! The only suggestion I would make here is instead of saying "this diagram", instead refer to it as Figure 1 and then label the image Figure 1. The lung histology information and picture again was really good, however same thing with reference to the image as I suggested for anatomy. Same thing with cardiovasculature reference to images. The timeline is really great, label your images as figures again though and then can have the little explanation. The brief summary above the timeline could look more structured if you placed it in a simple table.The rest of your information is good, however, some suggestions I would like to make to improve your page would be adding some videos in. These are always engaging and offer a different style of learning for people. A glossary of key terms could also benefit your page. Referencing overall looks good, however, there are a few errors in your referencing. Overall really great page though.

---

This project page is very detailed and extensive yet still clear and easy to follow. The tables and many diagrams make the page very engaging. The material is relevant and informative. The structure is well layed out with the use of headigs and subheadings. The use of movies in the ‘current understandings and areas of research’ is very creative and makes the content easier to understand. You have clearly put a lot of time and effort into this project and I only have a few minor recommendations for improvement. Firstly the in-text referencing is minimal in some sections and this should be worked on before the project is due. Also a more detailed and descriptive introduction section could be used to explain what the project is about. Also some of the diagrams I believe are too large and are overwhelming on the page. A large heading of ‘The Lungs’ could also be placed at the top of the page in larger writing to make it more engaging, perhaps with a simple diagram of the lungs. Overall, congratulations this project is extremely well done.

---

Lung histology and cardiovascular are beautifully drawn but maybe the terms could be bolded because it is a little hard to fully make out the labels on the diagrams. I like that you guys integrated both the information and diagrams together by referring to them in the text instead of just planting the image there without referring to it. It makes the page enjoyable to read. Also, referencing done throughout the abnormalities section is thorough and indicative of the extensive research done on it, good job. For the developmental timeline, it might help to move the pictures below the table--and label the images-- so that the table is only text and more easy to read all in one instead of having the images adding unnecessary spacing. This may be a personal preference however. For developmental signalling processes, both images containing information about FGF10 have the descriptions below them. It might help to add that descriptions to the images themselves so that they don’t interrupt the flow of that section. There is some information missing from current research, future questions, and glossary hat need to be completed as well.


This peer review is based on the relevant dot points of the ‘Group Assessment Criteria’, as well as subheadings suggested by Mark. This information can be found on the student page.

Criteria Strengths Weaknesses
1. The choice of content shows a good understanding of the topic area The developmental timeline is excellent; this section is very detailed and the ideas are expressed clearly. The accompanying images for each stage of development enhance the information in the table and make some of the more complex ideas easier to visualize.

The ‘lung anatomy’ and ‘lung histology’ sections provide background information that makes the rest of the wiki page easier to comprehend. The student-drawn images in these sections are really well done, and make the ideas in the text easier to understand.

The ‘animal models’ and ‘abnormal development’ sections are explained clearly and in detail. The ‘key discoveries’ component of the assignment was addressed well (I liked how it was integrated with the developmental timeline). The information in ‘developmental signaling processes’ was expressed clearly, and covered the section in adequate detail. The accompanying images also enhance the information presented in this section.

Overall, the wiki page has an excellent layout, with the chosen sub headings making the page easier to follow.

The ‘future questions’ and ‘current research’ sections of the wiki page lack content. There are some references to current research throughout the wiki page (see ‘alveolus: the functioning unit), however descriptions of the findings are often vague and there is no information included about the source (e.g. the authors, the date, the title of the research paper).

Some sections of the wiki page may be improved by adding visual aids (e.g. in ‘animal models’)

2. Content is correctly cited and referenced There have been attempts at referencing throughout the assignment. A reference list has been produced and appears mostly correct. The ‘abnormal development’ section was referenced particularly well.

The reference list is extensive, with the majority of the sources being peer-reviewed primary research articles.

Most of the images on the wiki page have been referenced correctly (see all images in ‘developmental timeline’)

Referencing throughout the wiki page is inconsistent. Many areas lack referencing entirely (see ‘lung anatomy’ and ‘lung histology’), and other sections have minimal in-text citations. Remember to cite any information that is not original (in either wording or idea)

Student drawn images from the ‘lung anatomy’, ‘lung histology’ and ‘lung cardio vasculature’ are not referenced correctly. Remember to cite the source from which the image was derived.

Some references have been repeated in the reference list (see references 15 and 16).

3. The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level The information on the wiki page is written at a level appropriate for peers. The ‘anatomy of the eye’ section provides background information that clarifies information further down the wiki page.

Most of the included diagrams and tables enhance the written information.

Many of the acronyms and terms used in this assignment are either poorly explained, or not explained at all. Be sure to add definitions under the ‘glossary’ section so the reader can more easily comprehend some of the more difficult subject areas.

Some images on the page don’t have descriptions. Try adding descriptions to make the images easier to understand.

4. Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology The wiki page addresses most of the relevant aims of embryology, including embryonic development, abnormal development, signaling processes, animal models and key discoveries. The wiki page lacks content relevant to other aims of embryology, such as current research. Be sure to add some information under this sub-heading.
5. The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic Much of the content on the page has been well researched, particularly the developmental timeline.

The extensive reference list shows that, overall, this topic has been well researched across a wide variety of sources.

No links to other pages on the UNSW embryology wiki have been included. Try linking this wiki page to other aspects of the embryology wiki, such as the ‘lecture 11- respiratory’ page.

---

Strengths:

• The wiki page appears to explore a variety of topics regarding the development of the lung, ranging from topics such as lung anatomy and histology, developmental origin andt and also abnormalities associated with development. Furthermore, all topics are relevant to lung development (criteria 1). In addition, a variety of images, tables and movies have been utilized alongside the written-text (criteria 2). This helps present information to students who prefer to learn visually.
• The contents are presented in an appropriate level for the peer. The author for most of the time attempts to provide clarification for acronym accompanied with images and tables that make it easier for the peer learning (criteria 4).
• The authors of this wiki page have also successfully described evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities (criteria 5) by exploring animal models that have contributed to our understanding of lung development. The authors have made an excellent start by describing mouse models with respect to different gene signaling processes and their involvement in lung development.

Areas of improvement:

• Authors should provide a more detailed description of the signaling processes involved in lung development (FGF and SHH)., Also, very few signaling pathways have been listed under this subheading.
• The author seems to have some citation errors in the reference list (article 22). Some section (lung anatomy, lung histology, the conducting system, alveolus and current research) seem to not have any in-text citation. The articles on hyaline membrane disease seem very old and they could be outdated.
• Some subheadings are not explained in details (lung cardiovascular) whereas other (current understanding and area of research and future question) lack contents. • Some acronyms lack clarification such as Sox9 and HS-GAG as the author provide a brief description of their role without attempting to explain what they are. Also, some of the drawn images are not very clear for the reviewer.
• Authors may have described the history of research which may have contributed to our current understanding of lung development. For example a timeline may be developed to clearly describe this (criteria 6).

Grade: DISTINCTION

General Comment: This wiki page has addressed most aspects of this assignment really well. Only a few areas need some improvement.

--- Peer review project 5

  • 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. But when you read the developmental origin section it does not say which germ layer it comes from. That is written in another section which I find confusing.
  • Good idea drawing your own pictures, but because it is done with a pencil it is difficult to see what’s written on the picture.
  • I like the anatomy introduction to the lungs – but I don’t see how the histology part is relevant to the project
  • The abnormal development section was well-written and seemed like the group had done their research
  • The current research section is still empty
  • I liked the development timeline with the historical discoveries. But I think the development is the key stone of the project and therefore it would be nice if it had is own section instead of being the table. But the context itself was good
  • I think the conducting system section is good and I like how you referred to the signalling processes which is also well described.
  • Some sections still need referencing
  • I liked that you included videos in your project

---

Introduction could be longer, briefly introduce what you are going to discuss in this project page. The drawings are nice but could have been better if they were darker and coloured. In the glossary section, everyone do this as you go with your part as there are lots of technical terms. With those pictures included on the page, give them a name e.g. Figure 1, figure 2 etc. and then state them in the text where you would like the readers to see. As seen in the lung cardiovasculature and lung history section, it starts off with “this diagram”, the diagram should be indicated for example: Figure 1 shows…, or the diagram (figure 1) on the right shows … etc. The lung history and structure of respiratory network section are not referenced. The developmental timeline is well presented with both text and images, well referenced, and constructed nicely in the table. In the current understanding, summaries of journal articles and their findings would be beneficial. With animal models, it needs to be referenced and include a few figures. Image showing each of the abnormality in development is a bonus as well. In the other hand, the texts in the abnormal section are nice written, easy to understand and referenced well which show a lot of researches have put into this.

---

The anatomy, histology and cardiovasculature sections are written and structured very well. The figures are direct, clear and enhance the text. The bolded words highlight anatomy specific for the lung and would be wonderful for the future glossary. Timeline is formatted extremely well and the level of detail coupled with the figures used is excellent. The structure of the respiratory network and the development signalling pathways are again done very well but would benefit from deeper referencing. The inclusion of short movies is entertaining and a helpful learning tool. Abnormal development was covered extensively and referenced well. Overall there was a cohesive writing style and approach to the topics, which flowed very well and created an engaging page.


  • Structure of respiratory network
    • Should be moved upwards and linked with anatomy
  • Animal models
    • Section could have used some introductory description to give context on why this section is being explored and its importance
  • Overall, solid effort. 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
    • Use of intext citations can be improved upon
      • Relative lack of citations suggests presence of uncited information in the page
    • Remember to remove zIDs before final submission

Really well done. I think your project is very straight to the point; there is a lot of content, but it doesn't feel overwhelming and I put this down to your formatting, use of diagrams and tables. Very good job on the developmental timeline. Everything is easy to understand, there isn't too much info and your images and references are all appropriate. I particularly like how you've done your signalling section. I think a lot of groups have presented very well researched information on signalling, but that it has been too overwhelming where as you guys have presented a short and sweet summary of your main 4 processes with relevant diagrams. The language in this section was appropriate for peer level, so that made it easy for me to follow rather than having to re-read sentences over and over again because they contained too many complex terms. Well done on finding relevant videos to support your animal models sections, I personally find videos more helpful than diagrams so this definitely was a good addition to your project, and you've provided a nice short summary of what to expect in each video too. Your animal models section has a good amount of detail without being too overwhelming, however you need references there. Well done on your abnormalities section - although there is quite a bit of info, you have provided the main important points which made it easy to follow. Perhaps more pictures could be added to it though.

Overall, it's clear you haven't finished but it does seem like you know what you are doing. Your project has been easy to read with many relevant figures, tables and videos - well done. There is some work to be done on referencing, however, for the most part all the things you need to improve can be easily done. Good job


  • Most references are missing especially in the introduction, structure of respiratory network, developmental signaling processes and animal models. The group may want to decide on one style of referencing for eg. APA or BJP.
  • Good inclusion of several images that are relevant and they facilitate understanding. However, the images are not properly captioned and referenced.
  • Good and consistent effort could be seen from various sections of the page with clear organization of content in tables and paragraphs. Content is generally fine with good elaboration that is easy to follow.
  • The focus of the page is also evenly distributed instead of skewing towards one.

__

GROUP 5

Lung Anatomy/Histology/Cardiovasculature: I think this section is an excellent start to your groups page - the histology section especially adds some depth. The drawings are really nice to view too! Developmental Origins/Timeline: the table is really well structured and there is a nice amount of depth in the description. I like the inclusion of historical developments also Structure/Developmental Signalling: This section flows nicely on from the previous subheadings and is also well written. However there is a lack of referencing in both of these sections Abnormal development: again a good amount of depth and well written.

Overall: not much to fault with this project it looks like you guys are on the right track!


Group 5- Lung

Regarding content:
The structure of the project is easy to follow and has been done well. Headings and subheadings have been added appropriately. However, information is needed under some sections. “Current Understandings and Areas of Research” does not have the essential details. There are some subheadings which have little or no information under them altogether.

Referencing and Research:
Most of the images have been referenced quite well. It is notable however that while citing information, references are missing under some sections, such as Lung Histology. There are some images which do not have copyright information provided.

Other Comments:
Various hand drawn diagrams have been used which reflect the effort and understanding of the topic. The development timeline is also commendable. Videos have been used which not only display creativity, but give provide visual aids which help with understanding. However, due to the sizing of some of the images, they are not that clear.