Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2016/Nostalgia and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Structure[edit source]

Avoid having a single sub-section within a section; either add another sub-section or merge the content into the higher level section. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 00:06, 22 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 well-written chapter which draws on a sound understanding of relevant theory and research.
  2. The chapter could be improved by providing more in-text linking to other relevant chapters and/or Wikipedi articles.
  3. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. The phenomenon is well described, with examples.
  2. Relevant theory and connections to related concepts are well explained.
  3. Was the McCann (1941) source directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).
  4. Addition of case studies or additional examples could be helpful.
  5. The Overview is well written but could more strongly emphasise the take-home messages for improving the reader's life.

Research[edit source]

  1. Considerable relevant research is cited, showing a very good understanding of the literature.
  2. The Reeve (2015) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources. Note that there was no Reeve (2014) publication.
  3. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
  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 generally very good.
    1. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    2. Some clarification templates have been added to the page.
  2. Layout
    1. Avoid sections with only one sub-section. A section should have no sub-sections or at least two sub-sections.
    2. The chapter is well-structured.
    3. Tables and/or Figures are used effectively.
  3. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (e.g., to relevant Wikipedia articles and other Wikiversity book chapters) to make the text more interactive. e.g., solastalgia.
    2. Quiz questions could be used to encourage reader engagement.
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour).
  5. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of commas before "and" in a list of three or more items.
  6. APA style
    1. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations e.g., put in-text citations in alphabetical order.
    2. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:11, 10 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.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a very well prepared, creative, and executed presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Effective Overview - sets up and establishes the problem and its importance in a clear and understandable way.
    2. Maybe add examples.
  1. Selection and organisation
    1. Well selected content - not too much or too little.
    2. Well structured.
    3. Theory was well covered.
    4. Balanced perspective.
    5. Basic coverage of research.
    6. Include citations and references.
  2. Conclusion
    1. Too brief.
    2. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Audio is clear and well-paced.
    2. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Visuals
    1. Fabulous - animated/time lapse of whiteboard text/images
    2. Visuals are clear, interesting, and easy to read.
    3. The combination of images and text is effective.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, very well produced.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Link to chapter provided.
    3. Minimal but sufficient use of the Description field.
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Low volume
    2. Some white noise
    3. 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 correctly shown in at least one location. Creative Commons.
    2. Original images

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)