Hi, have you considered putting some photos or colour into your book chpater? You're probably going to do that today, but just thought I'd ask as I think it would be a good addition :)
--U3072703 (discuss • contribs) 22:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I've added some coloured boxes into your book chapter just so the sections are more distinguishable, if you would prefer not to have them you can remove the syntax its
:) I also added in the title of your book chapter, the headings for the other sections which I am assuming you are adding in later, and I also added the syntax for a quiz, again if you do not wish to have a quiz you can remove the syntax. I only added it because the marking rubric suggests we have additional 'learning features' e.g. pictures, tables or a quiz and I didn't want to add the others in case you did not want them, although I would recommend adding them :)
I really like your book chapter, I think it is very informative and I think it flows nicely. You've done a good job! U3081383 (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed that the syntax for the coloured boxes doesn't show unless you look at this on edit U3081383 (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editing tip - Linking to Wikipedia articles[edit source]
Thank-you for your contributions to Wikiversity! I hope you don't mind being offered a Wikiversity editing tip. Links to Wikipedia article should be made as internal rather than external links. For example, [[w:Pet|pet]] creates a link like this: pet to the Wikipedia pet article. This is preferred to an external link like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet or pet.
I hope this helps to further empower your Wikiversity contributions! -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the structure of this presentation appears logical, it feels rushed. It is important to choose only the important concepts to present in this overview. Viewers can refer to the chapter if they want to know more. Theory is discussed. Research is integrated throughout. Illustrative examples are not included.
Communication is an area for improvement. The voice-over is too fast and difficult to hear (due to both audio quality and pace). The slides are somewhat unclear. The use of dot points could help to make the slides easier to follow. Also, it is best not to read directly from the slides. Simply present the most important information in text, and expand on it verbally. The inclusion of more images or figures could also help to make the presentation more engaging.
Basic production tools are used. The audio quality is poor, and is difficult to hear. The visuals are clear. The presentation lacks a professional feel, due to much of the feedback above. A link back to the book chapter is not provided. Image source information is provided.
Overall, this is a solid chapter. Coverage of theory is good, and coverage of research is reasonable. The style is somewhat academic/dry and could benefit from, for example, some examples and case studies. For more feedback, see these copyedits and comments below.