From Embryology
Revision as of 14:34, 4 November 2018 by Z8600021 (talk | contribs) (→‎Peer Assessments)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

Peer Assessments

Mark Hill (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2018 (AEDT) These Project peer assessments include both positive and negative feedback items. These are useful for the improvement of these projects.

Project Group 1: Adrenal Medulla

Z5229549 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2018 (AEST) Content on a whole was relatively smooth to read, not too much technical jargon that is often seen in more off-putting texts. The inclusion of self-drawn images brings a refreshing colour to the overall page, and seem rather accurate too, though the arrangement and positioning of the images and text could use some readjustment.

However, there are still some headers that are lacking content, presumably still under editing and would be up soon. It also would be to some diagrams of the several experiments mentioned under animal models instead of just a large block of text.

Overall, aside from several empty headers, the ones currently there more or less have the content nailed down, though several polishings and edits could be made.

Project Group 4: Cardiac

Z5229549 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2018 (AEST) A quick glance of the entire page revealed a relative lack of visual aids, discounting the embed video and a diagram showing a step-by-step development of the heart in a fetus. Use of tables and point form sentences in each section do help break up chunks of words, allowing a more bearable read. It is good if the format, heading and structure-wise could be standardised throughout in a show of better professionalism.

The introduction is short but concise. It would be viable to include some context history of the study's beginning and development. More explanation in early development without an overuse of technical jargon is advisable. Noticed that Models and Research is not yet fully written. The inclusion of recent discoveries of cardiac diseases would make it more interesting.

Overall, the content seem to be more or less there, withholding certain sections where it is too brief. Format and structure needs a little work, and inclusion of more visual aids is viable.

Project Group 5: Dorsal Root Ganglion

Z5229549 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2018 (AEST) Wiki page seems pretty much fleshed out with a decent number of diagrams. Some of the sections under development could be more concise. Introduction appears to be lacking as the history. The flow of the entire page however, needs touching up as it feels very choppy to read. Also, less technical jargon could be used to provide a more concise descript of some of the development sections.

Overall, a more or less complete page, disregarding the introduction and history. Well referenced with adequate visual aid.