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

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey, I felt this chapter was really informative and I liked how you went into detail with both the psychological and the biological aspects of overeating. I think that mentioning that overeating is an eating disorder itself (binge-eating disorder) could provide more depth into the psychological side of things. This then could lead to the nature vs nurture when it comes to eating disorders etc. (genetic factor, environment that enables/ encourages it). Other than that, I cannot really fault you. Good job. - u3165502

Hi, interesting chapter :) I have a few suggestions, I think adding a little more to your overview to tell the reader what the chapter will talk about would be helpful to provide a clear picture of what the chapter is about and what it will cover. I also noticed your missing quite a few in-text references throughout your chapter (i know this is a draft, so you may be planning to add them in later?). Other than that, good start :) I also found an article that might be helpful for you, it talks about why people overeat (biological/environmental/decision making) as well as how food companies (and food in general) affects overeating. It's called: Understanding overeating and obesity by Christopher J. Ruhm. DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.07.004. Hopefully this is helpful, good luck --U3117274 (discusscontribs) 14:24, 21 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 20:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Overeating vs. over-eating[edit source]

Make sure to be be consistent in use of use overeating or over-eating. The page name uses overeating, so I suggest sticking with that form. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Heading style[edit source]

Remove extra formatting from headings (bold, colons) - just use standard Wikiversity heading styles. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:57, 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 chapter, with a strong understanding of theory.
  2. The chapter could be improved by describing relevant research in more detail and by proofreading to help ensure that the quality of written expression meets professional standards.
  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 source]

  1. The Overview is basic but sufficient. To improve, consider possibly including focus questions and/or a case study.
  2. Very good coverage of relevant motivational contributors to overeating. Some other possible motivational risk factors to consider:
    1. Taste (variety)
    2. Number and gender of people in eating group

Research[edit source]

  1. # Several very useful/relevant research studies are cited, but the chapter could be improved by providing more detail about these studies.
    1. When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
    2. When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
  2. Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  3. Was the Kennedy (1953) source directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a secondary citation).

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression is generally very good, but could be improved by paying particular attention to grammar and spelling.
    1. For academic writing in psychology, such as this book chapter, write in third person rather than first (e.g., avoid "I', "we", "our") or second (e.g., "you", "your" etc.) person perspective.
    2. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme.
  2. Structure and headings
    1. See earlier comments about heading casing
    2. Avoid sections with only one sub-section. A section should have no sub-sections or at least two sub-sections.
    3. The section summaries are excellent.
  3. Layout
    1. Unfortunately, no images were used because the images that had been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons were deleted due to lack of sufficient copyright permissions. Consider using images which are already available on Wikimedia Commons.
  4. Integration with other chapters
    1. No integration with other chapters is evident Frowny.svg. For example, the role of leptin and ghrelin could be summarised more succinctly, with a link to chapters such as Motivation and emotion/Book/2010/Hunger motivation for more information. Similarly, the discussion about habits could be enhanced by linking to the Habit theories and behaviour chapter.
  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. Spelling
    1. Spelling could be improved - see the [spelling?] tags.
  7. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
  8. APA style
    1. The reference list is not in full APA style.
    2. Check and correct the APA style formatting of in-text citations (e.g., for et al.).
    3. 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)).

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:07, 18 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 an effective, basic presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. Brief, but OK
    2. Add an Overview slide.
    3. Sets up the problem to be solved (the question i.e., the subtitle for the book chapter).
    4. Tell the listener what they will find out about if they watch this presentation.
  2. Selection and organisation
    1. Well selected content - not too much or too little.
    2. Well structured.
    3. Theory rich; research poor.
    4. Addresses a self-help theme.
    5. Balanced.
    6. Perhaps consider using more illustrative examples.
    7. Include citations and references.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Take-home messages / key points are well summarised.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Reasonably well narrated.
    2. Present in the third person (i.e., avoid "I", "my", "we" etc.) because the presentation should be about the topic, not the presenter.
    3. Audio is reasonably clear.
    4. Audio narration is well-paced.
    5. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Visuals
    1. Simple, but effective
    2. Visuals are clear and easy to read.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic, effective production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Add a link to the book chapter.
    3. Link to the book chapter provided.
    4. Fill out the description field (e.g., brief description of presentation, link back to the book chapter, license details, and possibly include references, image attributions, and/or transcript).
  3. Audio recording quality
    1. Reasonably good
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Effective use of simple tools.
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is not indicated (i.e., in the meta-data or the visual presentation)
    2. 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 06:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)