User:Z5178275

2017 Project Groups
Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 5	Group 6
Z5177691 Z5178570 Z5093005 Z5059696 Z5059949	Z5178275 Z5178407 Z5076039 Z5017644 Z5015446	Z5178463 Z5076019 Z5059996 Z5076466 Z5018962	Z5177670 Z5117343 Z5075309 Z5075778 Z3416557	Z5178462 Z5059373 Z5114217 Z5062492 Z5076351	Z5177699 Z5113034 Z5114433 Z5076158 Z5018156
				Mark Hill - Lab 1 page

Hello!

Here is the Student Page demonstration page I showed in the Practical class.

Use this page to practice editing and don't forget to add a topic to the 2017 Group Project 2 page.

Chicken embryo E-cadherin and P-cadherin in gastrulation

Peer review group 3

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