User:Z5178462

Student Page

Peer Reviews

Group 1- Cerebral Cortex

Overall I find the information provided to be concise and easy to understand. The introduction was great in giving us a brief overview of page. The layout of the early development of the brain and the development of the cerebral cortex was really nice. I like the use of bullet points as this makes it easier to read. Also good amount of referencing is seen in this area. The use of the table is also a nice touch to the page and I like the picture used for E50-55. However, it could help to have another column with pictures for each row. That would help with the understanding of the text. For the anatomy of the cerebral cortex, it seems a little messy and hard to read as it is too point form. Perhaps these could be phrased into proper sentences with certain parts placed into bullet points to make it easier to read. Also, with the anatomy, pictures would be very helpful to aid in the explanation. For the functions of the cerebral cortex, it lists the functional areas but not the functions of those areas. Although it is stated in the video, which is a nice addition to the page, this could be improved by adding short sentences that state these functions that were mentioned as well. For Sections 1.4 and 1.5, references are also needed to state where the information was obtained from. The abnormalities section provides detailed explanations of the various disorders associated with the development of the cerebral cortex. There is also a good amount of pictures used. One thing I noticed was the references which was placed on the top of the section instead of throughout the text.

Group 2- Kidney

This wikipage is easy to read and the details provided was informative. The amount of text in each section was just nice and wasnt too overwhelming or insufficient, which was good. Overall, I noticed that the references could be improved. Instead of adding the link at the bottom, the team should use the code to reference such as in the section "Nephron development". Although the use of photos were really helpful and the choice of photos were great in the context they were added in, they were generally inconsistent in either description, reference or copyright information, which should be added to all photos. The anatomical position and kidney structure had clear and concise information and was easily understandable. The timeline of kidney embryology was really nice and I like how it was all 1-2 sentences long, making it really readable. In the section of developmental abnormalities, there is a large amount of text in the beginning that doesnt belong to any abnormality. Perhaps a subheading "Congenital Abnormalities of the Kidney and Urinary Tract" could be added to make it clearer as to what the text is about. Good use of image in each abnormalities though. The article appears to be unfinished but I'm assuming the team will be completing it after this peer review. To sum up, I like the readability of this wikipage and the images chosen, however, referencing and image descriptions could be further looked at for an even better page!

Group 3- Heart

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.

Group 4- Eye

Overall, this wikipage is pretty incomplete. However, that has been mentioned several times by the team, so i'm sure they will add on more after the peer review. The page is very neat and the text was quite concise. An introduction could be helpful to introduce what is an eye and what it does in the human body. In the anatomy of the adult eye, it was good that there were images of drawings to show the different parts of the eye, perhaps the drawings could be more clearly labelled with a thinner pen/pencil. Also a description of the image would be good as well. This section was well referenced. For the overview of eye develoment, I like the use of tables as it made it very easy to understand the content. The image (Figure 1.) was also well described and had appropriate copyright information. For the headings of this section, some could be changed such as 1.2 Eye Development, 1.2.1 Timeline of Eye Embryology, 1.2.4 Brief Outline/Description of the Eye Development. The portion on development of the eye components is incomplete, however for the parts that were there, there was not too much text and appropriate referencing. Pictures could be used in this section to improve it. For the congenital anomalies, I like the use of the table for ease of reading and understanding. Perhaps a more detailed description could be included. Also maybe the images could be added into the table as another column to make it neater. Good job so far, I think with some alterations and once they add the rest of the page, it would be a good wikipage! :)

Group 6- Cerebellum

Overall, this team's wikipage was really informative. They were detailed yet not too much information was given. There was a good balance with text and pictures. The pictures chosen were all of good quality as well with appropriate description, referencing and copyright information provided. The introduction was a very good brief of the entire page and explained what was to be expected. In the basic anatomy of the cerebellum, the subheadings were really well-defined. However, maybe neural development should be shifted to the developmental section instead. This section was well referenced. I like the use of the table to describe the cerebellum developmental weeks. The images used were really helpful in visualizing what was happening in those weeks. In the abnormalities section, it was short and concise with good picture. Maybe the caption of the photos could be placed together with the photo such as those in the table. This could make the photos look neater. Overall I find that this wikipage was well done, it had a good amount of text and photos and the references were all properly included.