Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Betrayal motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article To-Do List[edit]

After my article is updated, it's kind of fair game if you want to help out :)! TristanMM (discusscontribs)

  • Update references (TM) - DONE
  • Upload final content (TM) - DONE
  • Create boxes for various key points - DONE
  • Create links to key motivation topics and other 'backgrounding' Wikipedia articles - DONE
  • Insert images - DONE
  • Create quiz for key points, at the end of the article - DONE
  • Come up with a scientifically sound way to include Kim Jong-un in a figure. - DONE
  • Final proof-read - DONE
  • Submit (TM) - DONE

Comments[edit]

  • I recently discovered by formatting the references with the addition of & it complies with APA formatting, see example from your reference list: Elangovan, A., & Shapiro, D. (1998). Betrayal of trust in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 547-566.--U3090066 (discusscontribs) 21:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I was pretty lazy copying my references over :) TristanMM (discusscontribs) 08:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)*

Demo comment[edit]

Hi Tristan, I'm just using your page to post a demo comment. ---- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Awesome chapter[edit]

Hi, I really enjoyed reading your chapter, very interesting!! I hope you don't mind, I have fixed some grammatical errors (mostly hyphens) in your chapter. I also found this image of the betrayal of christ on wiki commons if your interested in using it for your chapter; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Gospel_of_Luke_Chapter_22-26_%28Bible_Illustrations_by_Sweet_Media%29.jpg

Great work & good luck :)--U3121176 (discusscontribs) 05:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and going through my article! I really appreciate the feedback and suggested changes. I'm looking forward to reading yours! TristanMM (discusscontribs) 09:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

edited your tip boxes[edit]

Hey,

I was reading your chapter and loved the green boxes that were labelled tips, although they seemed more like fun facts than tips. I.e., are you saying oxytocin nasal spray is a good tool for biological warfare haha? Anyway, I changed the Tip to Fun Facts, as it seems to fit better. I also edited the box in the reducing betrayal section. I hope you like it, but if you dont you can always change it.

Cheers, --Muzz2016 (discusscontribs) 03:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that and for taking the time to read through. I updated the oxytocin fun fact slightly, since it plays a vital role but it can also be artificially changed too. TristanMM (discusscontribs) 06:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Slightly edited and read through[edit]

Hey, great informative chapter. I had a read through and made some minor sentence changes. I really like the fun facts you have throughout as well. Just one thing though - I think it would be great if you have some picture throughout your chapter to break it up a bit and add some good visual content!!

Otherwise great job :) --U3112339 (discusscontribs) 01:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)U3112339

Feedback[edit]

What an interesting topic! I only just started reading but it's really cool how you include a section on motivating people to betray trust! I just have one suggestion; your title "What is trust, betrayal and motivation?" I think the grammatically correct way is "What are trust, betrayal and motivation?" but that sounds really weird! Maybe you could say something like "Definitions: Trust, Betrayal and Motivation' or 'Defining Trust, Betrayal and Motivation'?

My first impression is that you could do to add some images or coloured topic boxes to break it up a bit, as it is a little hard on the eyes to see a wall of text. I do like how you link to other articles within the text though!

I'm not sure if this is intentional, but when you talk about accidental betrayal you say 'the betrayal was not intentional and can be characterised as errors.' Do you mean 'as an error'? I didn't change anything in the text because I wasn't sure if it was deliberate. You also need to put a citation after that definition, which I have done (and logged clearly if you want to undo it).

I also think that when you refer to the Dark Cognitive Triad you could do to reword that section a little. Machiavellianism sounds a little out of back as all the others have the correct ending. Machiavellianistic?? Or 'intentional betrayal could be caused by facets of the Dark Cognitive Triad (narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathology).'

I have also added asterisks where there is a missing reference, but I would check throughout just in case I have missed some.

Otherwise, very interesting!

Cora --Cora.boyle (discusscontribs) 07:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cora. They're all really good suggestions. I've been putting off working on my article until this weekend to spend time reading others, otherwise I'd just be selfish and that wouldn't happen. I will also double check the references too, especially my wording in subsequent sentences following a citation to make sure I'm not passing off their ideas as mine. Thanks again TristanMM (discusscontribs) 09:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Over word limit[edit]

Hey I was reading through your chapter and did a quick word count, noticing you're about 500 words over the limit (4400, or 4000 +10%); although you are probably already aware of this. One way to remedy this would be to consolidate a few paragraphs from the biological and cognitive mechanism sections. Alternatively, you could remove the manipulating betrayal section, as finishing on ways to prevent betrayal is a nice and round way to finish your chapter.

Cheers, --Muzz2016 (discusscontribs) 06:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Thanks for that.

Sadly, I have the G student word limit (4950 max) but I still have a few Wiki things to add in so I'll need to delete some things. TristanMM (discusscontribs) 09:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Late feedback[edit]

Hi, sorry my feedback is reaching you after the due date. I have an extension and am a bit slow catching up. I made a couple of really minor grammatical changes, but resisted doing anything to sentence structure as you have already submitted your chapter. There are a few sentences that could do with breaking up, or tend to repeat the same words. I often find it helps to read my work back to myself aloud. I find I pick up more grammar errors that way. Since your sentence structure in your multimedia presentation sounds great, I think your written work would really benefit from that approach?? Just a thought? I also really liked your 'fun facts' sections. They helped to bring the reader back to the topic of the chapter - very grounding. Good luck! --U944295 (discusscontribs) 12:42, 2 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 fantastic chapter which makes effective use of the wiki environment and provides an integrated, indepth, but very readable synthesis of psychological theory and research on the topic.
  2. The chapter is over the maximum word-count - abbreviate some of the somewhat repetitive content.
  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. Theoretical perspectives are particularly well covered and explained, with integrated discussion of research.
  2. The Overview clearly explains and establishes the importance of the topic.
  3. The Conclusion offers a succint summary and emphasises solutions.
  4. Perhaps more case studies would be helpful.
  5. The feature/tip boxes are excellent.

Research[edit]

  1. A good range of useful/relevant research studies are described, with a critical perspective evidence, and well integrated with theory.
  2. If possible, describe the size of effects and relationships.

Written expression[edit]

  1. Written expression is excellent.
    1. In some places, the content is a little repetitive (contributing to word count blow out).
    2. Some sentences are overly long.
    3. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. The chapter is well-structured.
  3. Layout is excellent and makes very good use of the wiki environment.
    1. Tables and Figures should be referred to in the main text.
    2. Excellent use of bullet-points; I added some numbered lists
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. The chapter could be better integrated/linked to other relevant chapters.
  5. Learning features
    1. Excellent use of interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles.
  6. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading are excellent.
  7. APA style
    1. The APA style for the reference list is very good; remove issue numbers for paginated journals.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:27, 15 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 solid presentation.

Structure and content[edit]

  1. Overview
    1. Brief - states the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    2. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Theory was well covered.
    2. Research was well covered.
    3. Citations and references are included.
    4. Consider including more illustrative examples (and less theory/research)
  3. Conclusion
    1. Brief
    2. Consider providing more detailed take-home messages.

Communication[edit]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is clear and well-paced.
    2. Possibly leave longer pauses between sentences.
    3. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Image/Video
    1. Effective use of animated text and symbols
    2. Increase font size to make text easier to read.
    3. Consider including images.
    4. The combination of images and text is effective.

Production quality[edit]

  1. Overall, reasonably good production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. The title accurately reflects the book chapter.
    2. Link to chapter provided.
    3. Good use of the Description field to provide relevant information.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Reasonable
    2. Consider using an external microphone to improve audio recording quality.
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown. Creative Commons.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)