Chicken embryo E-cadherin and P-cadherin in gastrulation
reviews Group 1: Introduction provides a good summary, however the list of layers is quite long so maybe adding a diagram would make all that information a bit easier to take in? Or perhaps, listing the layers in dot point form rather than a long sentence. - Early development of the brain is very detailed, well researched as evidenced by the many references. Perhaps a short table summarising all that information could be added. Some formatting issues, but nothing that can't be easily fixed. - Development of cerebral cortex section very well done. Good use of diagrams and the table; they made the information easier to understand. However maybe the drawn diagram could be smaller (good job though!). Easy to follow. - Anatomy and functions sections are obviously unfinished, but it is clear that extensive research has been done to produce all that in the first place. So good job, once it is all formatted, I'm sure it will look great. All the dot points were easy to understand anyway. - Abnormalities section was very well researched. Great use of diagrams. Personally, I found the subheadings easy to grasp in the Contents, however it was a bit overwhelming to scroll through it all.
Overall, a good job. It is clear that some sections are incomplete, but it seems like there is a clear direction of where it is going. I would recommend a glossary of terms, just because the cerebral cortex is so complex and all the terms can become overwhelming. Tables in the development would help with this also just to provide a quick and easily accesible summary of development.
Group 3: 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!
Group 4: An introduction should be added rather than jumping straight into content. First thing I noticed was that your diagrams don't have any captions are anything, it's a bit hard to fit them in with the information you've presented without any appropriate labelling. Anatomy section well done though, very detailed and uses easy to understand language, just lacks references. - Embryological development timeline table is really brief, I think you should state what is happening in the development descriptions rather than just listing the part of the eye. The Carnegie Stages table was really good though, it was easy to understand what was happening because there was extra descriptions and it wasn't too descriptive that it became overwhelming so good work on that. Unfinished, but looks good anyway and looks like you know what's happening. - I like the embryonic contributions table and am glad you just put it as a table and nothing else. - Short overview section really well done. Language is easy to understand which means that it wasn't too overwhelming to read despite there being quite a big chunk of text. I just feel like this overview is in the wrong place? it just didn't flow to me. Good referencing and picture + labels - Development of eye components is unfinished, but what's there is good and well researched as evidenced by your references. When completing, I would suggest diagrams and/or videos so people can visualise the processes because you've listed quite a few components and just leaving it as text would be a bit much to take in. It looks like you have good direction for this though, so good job on that. - Congenital abnormalities. This is probably my favourite section of yours because I hadn't really considered using a table to summarise abnormalities. I think your table is really easy to understand and is nice and concise (I've often found the abnormalities sections overwhelming) so thanks for that! The figures at the end are appropriate and useful. Very impressed by the section.
Overall this has been one of the better projects to me because you've used appropriate language and have a great use of tables to summarise your research. I didn't feel very overwhelmed by your information because it was well written and concise. I would suggest adding an introduction to give readers an overview of your project, and perhaps revising the order of the first half of the project because it seems a bit disjointed to me. Nothing wrong with your content, just doesn't flow to me.
It's clear that you haven't finished, but I think you are on the right track and am looking forward to seeing the finished product. Well done so far.
Group 5: 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
Group 6: I think overall, this project is the most wholesome and well formatted. You have provided a great deal of information, which you have supported with many relevant references. It is clear that a lot of effort has been put in - well done. At times there is a lot of content, e.g. cerebellum development section, but it is fine because your language is plain and under stable and you have provided suitable diagrams. Perhaps adding a video could be a good addition. Your first trimester table has good detail and is easy to understand, however I would suggest changing the colour scheme of the table because it was a bit hard to differentiate the rows and looked like there was just a huge white space with words in the middle. Nothing that can't be easily fixed though. Same for the table under it. I think you have good flow to your page, however I would suggest changing the size of the subheadings in the abnormalities section because they're all the same, so got a bit confused at first.
Overall very well done.