Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Depression in older adults

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[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 reasonable chapter which could be improved by more closely focusing on the emotional aspects of the topic (as per unit/book theme) and more proofreading. A strength of the chapter is the practical emphasis on how to prevent and improve the mental health and well-being of the target population.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Breadth of theoretical coverage is reasonably good; depth could be increased.
  2. Consider including some examples/case studies.
  3. Incorporate links to other related book chapters (e.g., dementia and emotion)

Research[edit source]

  1. Research coverage was reasonable, but depth could be improved.
  2. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the sample and possibly cultural context.
  3. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  4. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  5. Several very useful/relevant research studies are described. They tend to be described one after the other. To improve the review of research, look for patterns and themes and try to synthesise the findings in order to convey a greater depth of understanding.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression is reasonable, but could be improved.
    1. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., above, below, as previously mentioned).
  2. Layout
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
    2. Figure captions should be more explanatory.
  3. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (e.g., to relevant Wikipedia articles and other Wikiversity book chapters) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement.
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize -> hypothesise).
    2. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  5. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  6. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations.
    2. Add APA style captions to tables and figures.
    3. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for seriated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[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 see the 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.

Overall[edit source]

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

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Basic theory and research is covered.
  2. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.
  3. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Present in the third person (i.e., avoid "I", "my", "we" etc.) because the presentation should be about the topic, not the presenter.
  2. Voice communication is very flat; consider using more varied intonation clear to help engage the listener.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Check slide zooming - some slides are not easily viewable because the presentation doesn't zoom into them.
  2. Also include license details, and image attributions.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]