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

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments[edit source]

Hey - I found a great read on the topic of blue space, before seeing your page I was not familiar with the term, I look forward to seeing your final result! Here is a link to the article, but if it doesn't work the title is: 'Blue space: [null The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes.]'


there are quite a few more sources on PsychINFO database. Good Luck! --Sebastian Kelly (discusscontribs) 02:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, tried to put a hanging indent in your reference list for you, but my laptop wasn't cooperating (thus the multiple edits and undoings, sorry haha). Nonetheless, have left the template for you in the hopes that you may have more luck. All the bestU3117451 (discusscontribs) 08:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback[edit source]

Hi! First off, very interesting topic! I haven't started reading yet but I've noticed your overview section is significantly longer than most people's are, so I suggest separating it into subheadings. "Water pleasures and arouses individuals" sounds inappropriate, so I would consider changing the phrasing. I would suggest changing the sentence "There is rising confirmation to advise that contact with the natural environment can be linked with mental health benefits" to "There is rising confirmation that advises that contact...", as I had to read the sentence a few times to understand what you meant. I also added a comma after depression and before mental health in the overview section. I think you need to read through your article and have a look at your sentences, as some as very long and a little unclear. Also, you should not use 'etc.' within the text. It looks unprofessional.

Maybe you could put your definition of blue space into a coloured box? It would help break up the text and look interesting! Instructions on how to do that here.

I would also put your different theories under separate headings within your theories section. Again, I think it would help to break up the text a little. In the same vein, you could add some images! Maybe of dams, lakes, or other bodies of water? Even people at the beach would be a nice touch.

Don't forget to fix up your references!

Good chapter content! Your in-text referencing is good too!

Cora --Cora.boyle (discusscontribs) 08:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 basic chapter; theory and research coverage is sufficient, but the quality of written expression is below professional standard.
  2. For more feedback see these copyedits and the comments below.

Theory[edit source]

  1. The chapter offers some theoretical explanations for the beneficial effects of blue space, but there is a lack of depth (e.g., explain Attention Restoration Theory) and breadth (e.g., what about Stress Reduction Theory?)
  2. Although the broader health benefits of blue space are relevant and helpful, this chapter does not successful focus on, and answer, the question about the effect of blue space on emotion.

Research[edit source]

  1. Claims are well referenced.
  2. When describing the most important research studies, provide some indication of the method.
  3. 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 was not of professional standard (e.g., see where clarification templates have been added to the page).
    1. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    2. Some of the Overview content is repeated word-for-word in another section Frowny.svg
    3. The chapter would benefit from a more developed Conclusion.
  2. Layout
    1. Figure captions should be more explanatory.
    2. Add bullet-points for See also and External links.
    3. Some images are used, but their use could be improve by providing more detailed captions.
  3. Learning features
    1. Add Interwiki links (e.g., to relevant Wikipedia articles and other Wikiversity book chapters) to make the text more interactive.
  4. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (some general examples are hypothesize -> hypothesise; behavior -> behaviour).
  5. Grammar and proofreading
    1. The grammar of several sentences needs to be improved for the written expression to be of professional standard (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
    2. Check and correct use of commas (e.g., "For example" -> "For example, ")
    3. Check and correct the use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs. individuals').
  6. APA style
    1. Use APA style for table and figure captions.
    2. The reference list is not in full APA style.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 basic, but sufficient presentation.
  2. Over the maximum time limit.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Overview
    1. None provided.
    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. 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.
    2. Provide some visual examples of blue space?
    3. Theory rich; research poor.
    4. Consider using more illustrative examples.
    5. Citations and references are included.
  3. Conclusion
    1. Too brief.
    2. A Conclusion slide summarising the take-home messages / key points could be helpful.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Audio
    1. Basic narration.
    2. Audio narration is too fast to easily comprehend - consider slowing down. See this article for more information about speaking rates.
    3. Leave longer pauses between sentences.
    4. Consider using greater intonation to enhance engagement.[1]
  2. Visuals
    1. Basic - approximately half a dozen text-based slides with some images.
    2. Increase font size to make text easier to read; reduce the amount of text.
    3. Consider including more images, figures, and/or tables.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Overall, basic production.
  2. Meta-data
    1. Well titled.
    2. Add a link to the book chapter.
    3. 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. Good
  4. Image/video recording quality
    1. Use full screen mode for slides
  5. Licensing
    1. A copyright license for the presentation is correctly shown in at least one location. Standard YouTube License.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 14:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]