FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings. For example, use:
==Cats and dogs==
==Cats and Dogs==
-- Jtneill - 08:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Talk - c
Chapter review and feedback
Overall, this is a solid chapter.
For more feedback see
these copyedits and the comments below. Feel free to make ongoing changes to the chapter if you wish to address any of these comments or make other improvements.
Was the Murray (1938) source directly consulted? If not, don't cite it (or use a
secondary citation). Explains why the topic is important.
Includes focus questions.
Clear and well-written. Body
Rich consideration of relevant theory
Well-selected, critical focus on a range of relevant theories.
Limited integration with discussion of research. Conclusion
A basic summary; could be improved by providing some more concrete, take-home messages.
Some coverage of research, but this aspect could be further developed.
The Reeve (2015) textbook is over-used as a citation; preferably consult and cite primary, peer-reviewed sources.
Some statements are unreferenced (e.g., see the
tags) When describing important research studies, provide some indication of the nature of the method.
When discussing important research findings, indicate the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
Overly wordy in several places; see my copyedits for some suggestions about where the text could be simplified.
clarification templates have been added to the page. 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.
Use an active rather than a passive voice. The chapter successfully addresses the topic and book theme. Structure and headings
See earlier comments about
heading casing Add External links section. Layout
Some images are used, but the chapter could be improved by adding more images.
Figure captions could be improved by making them more explanatory. Integration with other chapters
Limited integration with other chapters is evident. Learning features
Some use of
interwiki links to relevant Wikipedia articles - more could be added. Quiz questions are used effectively to encourage reader engagement. Spelling
Spelling could be improved - see the tags. Grammar and proofreading
The grammar of some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the
tags). Check and correct the use of
ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals'). Check and correct use of commas (e.g., "For example" -> "For example, "). APA style
Check and correct the use of "&" vs. "and" (Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets).
The reference list is not in APA style.
Multiple citations should be in alphabetical order.
Jtneill - 04:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk - c
Overall, this is a very well prepared and executed presentation.
Perhaps also include something like the conclusion slides to help outline the presentation. Selection and organisation
Probably too much content is presented - be more selective - e.g., 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.
Theory rich; research poor.
Somewhat addresses a self-help theme.
Uses meaningful examples.
Citations and references are included. Conclusion
What are the simple, take-home, self-help messages?
Audio narration is too fast to easily comprehend - consider slowing down. See
this article for more information about speaking rates. Leave longer pauses between sentences. Visuals
Clear and easy to read.
Visuals are well prepared.
The animated combination of images and text is effective in attracting and sustaining viewer attention.
Overall, very well produced.
Rename the title so that it includes the subtitle (and matches the book chapter).
Link to and from the book chapter provided.
Excellent use of the Description field to provide relevant information. Audio recording quality
Good, clear, and reasonably consistent between slides.
Consider removing the background music - it arguably makes it more difficult to concentrate on the narration and visuals. Image/video recording quality
A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.
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 - 05:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk - c