From Embryology
Revision as of 11:03, 11 October 2017 by Z5114217 (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Reviews of other groups

Group 1 - Cerebral Cortex

Overall, a really informative and well-written wiki. The information was well presented and was understandable. The abnormalities section of the wiki, was particularly well done, as it was a good idea to group each abnormality with the disruption of the main event that lead to the abnormality, as it informs the reader that different abnormalities arise from a disruption of different processes that occur in the development of the cerebral cortex. The diagrams and pictures were useful as it functions as a reference point.

Overall, the layout was good, however maybe use more of a dot-point layout in the Anatomy section and maybe add some diagrams of pictures to enhance the information given. Also the sub-title "what is it?" is probably not needed as the introduction itself suggests that you will be describing what the cerebral cortex is and what is does. The Functions of Cerebral cortex may also need a bit more text as the video should just be a supplement rather than the main source for information in that section. Overall, well done as it was an informative and well written wiki.

Group 2 - Kidney

A really well-written and well presented wiki. The information was simplified and therefore was easy to comprehend. The use of images throughout the wiki was highly useful as they provided a visual reference point and enhanced the information presented.

A few things to work on include, take out the links that have been scattered through some of the paragraphs, either reference them with a number (footnote style) or include them in the list at the end. Simplify the section on kidney Blood supply. In the Abnormalities section of the wiki, there is a list of some of the main congenital defects that occur in kidneys, however not all of these dot-points are expanded on. Maybe you could include some more abnormalities that relate to the list or specifically mention that only a selected few are going to be expanded on. The current research section may need some more attention. Overall, the layout is fantastic and well done on a great wiki.

Group 3 - Heart

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.

Group 4 - Eye

Overall a great start on the wiki, the information is well presented however it still needs a bit more work before the due date. The Anatomy section is particularly good and the breakdown of the anatomy of the different sections of the eye, helps with interpretation and is really helpful. The use of images is really good, providing a visual reference point and further enhancing the information provided. It would be good to have a brief introduction on the page before the development and consequent information is written. Expand and complete the information of the development of the different parts of the eye, however the information currently there is very well written and understandable. Elaborate on the abnormalities and maybe you could include the pictures in the table, or expand on them outside of the table and have the pictures on the side. Complete the sections of the Carnegie table. Overall, it is a great start.

Group 6 - Cerebellum

The information is really well written and informative. The use of images is really good, especially with the description and when they have been included in the table. The section on the Historical Discoveries is a really interesting part and adds a good amount of background information to the cerebellum. Maybe add a table for the glossary section part that just relates to the terms relating to the cerebellum. Make sure that all references are referenced properly, not just the addition of the links. Overall, a really good wiki and the information is understandable and very well done.