Group 2 Feedback - Kidney --- I found the introduction to the kidney didn't flow very nicely and each sentence and paragraph were just points added in. Also, the grammar and punctuation in the introduction paragraph needs to be edited. The final thing that needs to be altered in the introduction paragraph is the links that have just been placed in. I'm not sure if they are the references but if so they need to be referenced correctly. The anatomical position and kidney structure are written really well! The only improvement I could make is with figure one and two reference them within the writing e.g. "Their inner structure can be divided into 2 main areas: the outer cortex, and the inner medulla, as illustrated in Figure 2", otherwise this section is really great. The timeline of the kidney embryology is good - basic outline which makes it easy to follow such a complex process. To make the page flow in a more succinct manner I think it would be good to put the kidney timeline under the kidney development heading instead of separating the two as the kidney development information expands on the timeline really well. The kidney development information is really good, and I think the images really complete it. However, the link at the end of nephrogenesis needs to be referenced correctly with intext. Also under blood supply, it says "THIS IS COPY AND PASTE" so I'm not sure if that's copied off another page or your own notes but that needs to be fixed. The abnormality section was really good and current research is a really interesting thing to include, that section just needs some more information which I'm sure you guys are already on top of! Overall its a really great page, good effort.
Group 3 Feedback - Heart --- The introduction was very good! I like how it introduced why the heart is so critical in early development, explained what you were going to discuss and where there would be gaps due to a lack of medical knowledge. The information in developmental origin and the developmental timeline is really great, however, I think you need to consider joining these two headings and not splitting them into one. You also state in developmental origin "as seen in figure two", however, none of your images have figure titles so I am not sure which figure you're actually referring to. The timeline is a good basic reference point, so I think it would be nice for it to be before the origin outline as it gives the basics which you then go into more detail about. I like that you put in the developmental signalling processes and then outlined each one of these, obviously the rest of those processes that have subheadings but no information just need to be finished. The current research is really interesting, again images just need a figure of some sort. The future questions section is a little confusing as I'm not sure if that's an area you're going to go into more depth over or if that's a future question you think research should look in to? So a clarification would be good. The glossary of terms is super helpful and all referencing looks good!
Group 4 Feedback - Eye Development --- Firstly those pointers under the heading Eye Development need to be deleted; I think they're just suggestions from Mark but if not you already have the subheadings at the top? An introduction to the human eye might ease into the topic a little better. You have done the anatomy of the adult eye really really well. The images you've drawn yourself to outline the structure is really good and there is an abundance of information, so I think this part is great! The timelines need to be completed, as you've stated otherwise they would be good timelines to follow as a basic structure for someone learning about fetal eye development. The information in the short overview is really good, however overview of what exactly? Make the heading more specific. The development of the eye components is really good however isn't complete. This section could, however, be improved by adding some images in to show the region of the eye you're talking about. The abnormalities section is good, however, I think you could refer to the figure instead of just having them below and a little more information on the description or consequences of the diseases would add more substance. The glossary also needs to be completed. Your referencing seems to be correct throughout. Overall good work the page just needs a few changes and more information!