Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Affective forecasting

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Heading casing[edit]

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 22:24, 27 November 2016 (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.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit]

  1. Overall, this is a basic chapter.
  2. ~1000 out of 4000 word limit used.
  3. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  4. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.

Theory[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. Needs to explain the topic/problem in easy to understand layperson terms, with examples.
    2. The chapter could be improved by developing the Overview so that it provides clearer focus question(s).
  2. Examples or case studies would be helpful.
  3. A basic explanation is provided of AF.
  4. The Conclusion could be improved by providing some more concrete, take-home messages.

Research[edit]

  1. There is little to no discussion of research.
  2. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  3. 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]

  1. Written expression is reasonably good, with room for improvement to bring it up to professional standard.
    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., see where clarification templates such as [Rewrite to improve clarity], [explain?], [say what?], and [vague] may have been added to the page).
  2. Structure and headings
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
  3. Layout
    1. Add See also and External links.
    2. There is minimal use of images or tables.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Add interwiki links links to a wider range of other relevant chapters.
  5. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (to relevant Wikipedia articles) to make the text more interactive.
    2. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could 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').
  7. APA style
    1. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:24, 27 November 2016 (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.

Multimedia.png

Overall[edit]

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

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. Sets up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter) but could take more time to explain what AF is and what will be covered in this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Well selected content - possibly too much content is presented - be more selective - because it feels somewhat rushed. For example, work backwards from 3 take-home messages to work out what content needs to be presented - and then focus on only that which is essential to conveying these messages.
    2. Well structured.
    3. Theory rich; research poor.
    4. Partly addresses a self-help theme.
    5. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.
    6. Include citations and references.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Well summarised - but add take-home messages.

Communication[edit]

  1. Audio
    1. Well narrated.
    2. Audio is reasonably clear and well-paced (slightly too fast).
  2. Visuals
    1. Basic - approximately half a dozen text-based slides with some images.
    2. Consider including more images, figures, and/or tables.
    3. Visuals are clear and easy to read.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Overall, basic, effective production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
    2. Link from book chapter to presentation not provided (a link has now been added).
    3. Link to the book chapter provided.
    4. Fill out the description field (e.g., brief description of presentation, license details, and possibly include references, image attributions, and/or transcript).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Reasonably good
    2. Consider using an external microphone to improve audio recording quality.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Excellent
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is not indicated (i.e., in the meta-data or the visual presentation).
    2. The stated license in the description doesn't match the selected youtube license.
    3. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.
    4. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons.
    5. The copyright licenses and sources of the images used are not indicated - there may have been copyright violation unless you own the copyright to the images used.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)