Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Trans-cranial direct current stimulation and depression

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey! I hope you don't mind but I just developed a basic layout for your chapter! Looks like an interesting topic, looking forward to reading it when its finished. Best of luck! U3048330 (discusscontribs)

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 09:53, 1 December 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 an excellent chapter in terms of theory and research, but could be improved by making better use of the interactive potential of the wiki environment.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory is very well explained.
  2. Consider including some diagrams.

Research[edit source]

  1. Research is well covered, with a balanced, critical perspective.
  2. Some statements were unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the sample and possibly cultural context.
  4. When discussing 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 very good.
    1. Write for an international, not just an Australian, audience.
    2. Write in third person rather than first person (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our", "your" etc.).
  2. Layout
    1. Add bullet-points for External links.
    2. See earlier comments about heading casing
    3. No images or tables were used.
  3. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (e.g., to relevant Wikipedia articles and other Wikiversity book chapters) to make the text more interactive.
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour).
  5. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style for how to report numbers (Numbers under 10 should be written in words (e.g., five); numbers 10 and over should be written in numbers (e.g., 10)).
    2. Check and correct the use of "&" vs. "and" (Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets).
    3. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations (e.g., for et al.).
    4. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for seriated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:53, 1 December 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 solid all-round presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Include citations about evidence for claims.
  2. Explain sham.
  3. Excellent balanced, critical understanding of the research evidence.
  4. Well structured, with a useful Overview and Conclusion.
  5. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio is very clear and well-paced.
  2. The presentation is text-based; consider also including some diagrams/pictures.
  3. Several abbreviations are used; consider spelling them out.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Fantastic to see this published on Wikimedia Commons.
  2. Overall, well produced using simple tools.
  3. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
  4. Rename the title so that it is more descriptive and meaningful.
  5. A copyright license for the presentation is indicated, with a link back to the book chapter.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]