Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Lövheim cube of emotion

Comments

Hello, perhaps you could put a section which addresses the criticism of the theory, or possible alternatives? U3100474 (discuss • contribs) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)u3100474

Hi, I thought maybe adding more of a history to the theoretical model might add to your chapter. Who developed it and why? Was it based off other emotion theories? You could also include information about how it compares to those other theories of emotion. Does it explain or go more in-depth than other theories? U3100230 (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi there! Just added the references for you, although I am sure you would do that soon- heres a handy website to help with your in text citations, its the reference tooltip used on wikipedia pages and is really easy to use, just follow the instructions on the website and all the references will automatically go to your reference list referencing

Good Luck! --U3098499 (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Heading casing

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use: ==Cats and dogs== rather than ==Cats and Dogs== -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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 Overall, this is a fantastic chapter which makes effective use of the wiki environment and provides an integrated, well-balanced explanation and critique of the topic. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below. Theory Theory is particularly well explained, with integration of available research, and a balanced, critical perspective. Research Research is well explained and critiqued. The research about the relationship between each neurotransmitter and emotions should be expanded. Written expression Written expression is generally excellent. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences. Some of the bullet-points should be rewritten into full paragraph format (e.g., in the sections about each of the neurotransmitters). Avoid sections with only one paragraph. A section should have at least two paragraphs. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., above, below, as previously mentioned). Layout Avoid sections with only one sub-section. A section should have no sub-sections or at least two sub-sections. Add bullet-points for See also and External links. See earlier comments about heading casing sections. Learning features The chapter makes some use of interwiki links. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading are excellent. APA style The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for seriated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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 Overall, this is a solid, well prepared presentation. Structure and content A helpful overview of the topic is provided, with balanced consideration and take-home messages. There could be a clearer explanation provided of the separate function of each of the neurotransmitters, before describing how they might work together. Communication Audio volume varies somewhat between slides, but is otherwise clear and well-paced. Varied intonation adds interest and engagement. Visuals are clear and easy to read. The combination of images and text is effective. Production quality Overall, well produced. Expand the description field (e.g., brief description of presentation, link back to the book chapter, license details, and possibly include references and image attributions). A copyright license for the presentation is not indicated (i.e., in the description or in the presentation slides). No clickable hyperlink link is provided back to the book chapter.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)