Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Cannabis and anxiety

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

It would be interesting to reference the difference between the content of the two different strains of cannibis Sativa tends to have more Cannabidinol, which is less likely to cause anxiety and may even reduce it as it agonises the serotonin 5ht1a receptor, which is a target shared with common antidepressants(see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697769/) Indica tends to have more THC

I know that THC is meant to cause more anxiety but i'm not sure which strain is worse. You might want to check out these articles https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Zerrin_Atakan/publication/26754337_Cannabis_and_anxiety_a_critical_review_of_the_evidence/links/09e415075bc44046dd000000.pdf http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00432554 There are alot of people who get really anxious from cannabis, and alot of people who get anxiety relief from it. Its interesting that cannabis itself is both excitatory and inhibitory. I havn't looked for a referenc but maybe it is linked in some way? All the best! --Arlo Porter (discusscontribs) 03:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello I just noticed that your references aren't marked with a hanging indent. Check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Hanging_indent goodluck! Audrey O'Mara (discusscontribs) 07:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading casing[edit source]

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 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback[edit source]

Hi,

Changed the sentence. "While there are a variety of ways to relief anxiety for the short- and long-term, some individuals make take up illicit drugs." to "While there are a variety of ways to relieve anxiety for the short- and long-term, some individuals make take up illicit drug use."

Grinded isn't a word, so I changed it to ground.

--Cora.boyle (discusscontribs) 02:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiki links[edit source]

This chapter could be improved by linking the first mention of key words to corresponding Wikipedia articles e.g., anxiety. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:03, 23 October 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 source]

  1. Overall, this is a solid, balanced chapter which incorporates critical overview of relevant theory and research and makes effective use of the wiki environment.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.
  3. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Theory is well covered, with a critical, balanced perspective evident.
  2. Examples or case studies would be helpful.

Research[edit source]

  1. Useful/relevant research studies are described.
  2. 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 generally very good, although proofreading/spelling was problematic.
    1. Write for an international, not just an Australian, audience.
    2. Some clarification templates have been added to the page.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. Each section should start with at least one introductory paragraph before branching into sub-sections.
  3. Layout
    1. Add bullet-points for See also and External links.
    2. Tables and/or Figures are used reasonably effectively.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. Some integration with other chapters is evident - more could be added.
  5. Learning features
    1. Excellent use of interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles.
    2. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement.
  6. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour).
    2. Needs proofreading - see [spelling?] tags
  7. APA style
    1. Put in-text citations in alphabetical order.
    2. Use APA style for table and figure captions.
    3. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:28, 17 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 source]

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

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Too brief
    2. Use the Overview to set up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    3. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Basic coverage of relevant theory and research.
    2. Include citations and references about evidence for claims.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is too fast - consider slowing down. See this article for more information about speaking rates.
    2. Leave longer pauses between sentences.
    3. Some words could be more clearly pronounced.
  2. Video
    1. Visuals are clear and easy to read.
    2. Consider use of more images/diagrams.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Excellent
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Excellent
  5. Licensing
    1. The stated license in the description doesn't match the selected youtube license.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 15:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)