Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2014/Plutchik's wheel of emotions

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Getting started[edit source]

Hi there, I noticed you haven't added anything to your page yet. I've got you started by adding your title, some subheadings for your work and a picture for you. Good luck with the rest :) Chernayy (discusscontribs) 23:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

references[edit source]

Hello, I just thought i would give you a tip for when you get up to doing your references as i had a bit of trouble trying to figure it out. I need to write it out because if i type in the code it doesn't show up on here. So you need to start by using this symbol { twice. Then write the words Hanging indent Then use this symbol | (on a mac it is above the enter key) and straight after type your reference.Then press the enter key and use this symbol } twice. After this press enter so that you leave a gap and then start the next one. All of this is done without any spaces except for the words hanging indent. Sorry if this is confusing i tried to type it to show you but it didn't work Hope this helps and good luck with the rest of your chapter.Soneill90 (discusscontribs) 03:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heading levels[edit source]

I recommend that the main headings use Level 2 i.e., == Heading ==. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heading casing[edit source]

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coloured backgrounds[edit source]

I recommend making minimal, if any use, of coloured backgrounds because this can make it more difficult for people with visual impairments to read the material. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:04, 27 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, a solid effort on a presentation that demonstrated good understanding of Plutchik

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. This presentation had good inclusion of all aspects of Plutchiks work. A greater emphasis on research might enhance, i.e any research to include from others about its applicability etc?

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation had a good pace and made effective use of prezi, however some of the slides were cut off at the bottom making it slightly confusing at times.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. the visual quality was generally good (see comments above re: fitting presentation on the screen) but the sound was extremely low, and even when computer and presentation were on full volume it was hard to hear.

Courtney.Bruce (discusscontribs) 04:00, 23 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.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a promising, but short/incomplate chat
  2. For more feedback, see these copyedits and comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theoretical coverage is very good.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research coverage is poor.
  2. The Reeve (2009) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression is good.
  2. Layout
    1. The wheel should be larger.
    2. Tables are used effectively.
    3. Coloured boxes were removed to aid readability; keep the style simple (e.g., as per Wikipedia articles)
  3. Learning features
    1. The text could become more interactive by including interwiki links.
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize -> hypothesise)
  5. APA style
    1. Add APA style captions to tables and figures.
    2. Direct quotes need page numbers.
    3. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]