Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Emotional manipulation by others

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Moodle site. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener. If you wish to dispute the marks, see the suggested marking dispute process.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic, sufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. The material appeared to be well-structured, although the structure wasn't necessarily easy to follow as it was only presented aurally. The content seemed reasonable, with more emphasis on theory than research. It could have benefited from some practical examples.

Communication[edit source]

  1. The communication in this presentation relied almost exclusively on audio. The visual component was head and shoulders video of the person. Probably more effective here could be the use of text and images. There was perhaps too much reference to the chapter - remember, the presentation should be a stand-alone work which focuses on explaining the key problem and key points without the reader having to go to the chapter (although the option should be available). For example, rather than refer to the quiz, why not ask the viewer about the key question - i.e., the take home message? Greater variation in tone could make the presentation more interesting and perhaps also some longer pauses between sections, to help let content sink in.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video and audio were clear. The video title could have reflected the book chapter title more closely - i.e., be more specific and focused on a specific question. There is no description about the video. It is not clear whether a copyright license has been consciously chosen. There is no link to the book chapter or link from the book chapter to the presentation.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 13:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chapter review and feedback

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via Moodle, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a basic chapter.
  2. For more feedback, see [these copyedits] and comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory is reasonably well covered, with a sound structure. However, there was a distinct lack of citations to support claims.
  2. Drop the dictionary definitions and consult relevant peer-reviewed psychological articles.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research isn't sufficiently well described.
  2. Many statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. When describing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression is reasonable, but is often grammatically incorrect.
    1. Obtaining (earlier) comments on a chapter plan and/or chapter draft could have helped to improve the chapter.
    2. The quality of written expression could be improved (e.g., where clarification templates have been added to the page).
    3. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    4. Some sentences are overly long.
  2. Layout
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
    2. There are no Tables or Figures.
    3. Coloured boxes were removed to aid readability; keep the style simple (e.g., as per Wikipedia articles)
  3. Learning features
    1. Some links to Wikipedia and/or Wikiversity articles were added as external links - these should be changed to interwiki links.
  4. Spelling
    1. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags
  5. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences need to be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags)
    2. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals')
  6. APA style
    1. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    2. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]