Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2018/Endometriosis and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 07:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit source]

I thought this was a really detailed and extensive outline! I did notice, however, that you have a lot of information and as such you may find yourself struggling to stick to the word limit as you start fleshing out your points. I noticed a couple of areas I thought you could reduce/ remove if you do find yourself running out of words: remove the aetiology section since as you state there isn't any real evidence yet; if you're really struggling you could also just briefly describe the symptoms and add condense the section down into one whole section instead of three; in the area 'What is emotion?' you could probably also remove what affect is and how it differs to emotion since I didn't see affect referred anywhere else (I'm pretty sure anyway- sorry if I'm wrong!); lastly the different theories of emotion probably also not as important as the rest of your sections so again if you need the words this could be removed. Also, i'm pretty sure co morbid should be hyphenated (co-morbid). Hope this helps! - u3067591

Hey there, I'm looking forward to reading your finished chapter - its coming along great at the moment. For your references, remember to add a hanging intent. You can do this by having the code { { Hanging indent | 1 = at the start of your references and } } at the end (check out my references if my directions don't make sense). I hope this helps in some way! --Brittany (u3117719) (discusscontribs) 09:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Thanks for the feedback! oh my gosh Brittany, I had no idea how to do the indent! thank you so much!

Hey Zoe, me again! I stumbled back onto your page (thinking I hadn't been here before) and saw that your references still didn't have the indent on them, so I added the indent into your code only to come here and find that I'd already made the suggestion!😶 Silly me, anyway I hope I've helped! Good luck with the assignment! --Brittany (u3117719) (discusscontribs) 02:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic development feedback

The topic development 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 the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title, sub-title, TOC[edit source]

  1. Perfect

User page[edit source]

  1. Very good

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. OK
  2. Links don't go directly to evidence of contributions
  3. See suggestions for how to record social contributions
  4. Sign contributions to talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of your comment

Section headings[edit source]

  1. OK
  2. The 2nd and 3rd top-level headings aren't really needed - cover these concepts briefly within the Overview or subsequent sections, with links to dedicated Wikiversity/Wikipedia resources for more info. This will allow the bulk of the structure to be focused on addressing the core topic (the chapter's sub-title i.e., 4th top-level heading). As a result, some of the sub-sections in the 4th top-level heading could come up one level, as top-level headings.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Well-developed, with citations
  2. See also comments about the section headings

Image[edit source]

  1. OK
  2. Expand diagram image size
  3. Expand figure caption to explain how it relates to one or more key points in the text

References[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. Use APA style (e.g., check use of issue numbers)
  3. For latest APA style recommended format for dois see

Resources[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. External links - Include info about source/destination in brackets after the hyperlink - see example

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New survey results[edit source]

May be of interest: -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jtneill, I think its super important that they undertake research regarding the therapeutic benefits of medical marijuana, particularly for women with endometriosis. However, I find the framing of triple J's article rather problematic, the use of phrases like "Apply heat, get high: this is how other women are dealing with endometriosis" comes across as though they are promoting the use of illicit marijuana for pain management especially when juxtaposed next to survey results that suggest women who used cannabis had lower rates of adverse events than women treating their pain through exercise. Whilst I understand they did say at the end of the article that they don't encourage women to try cannabis for pain management, the article comes across like a promising escape for a lot of vulnerable women whose lives sometimes feel controlled and suppressed by the the painful symptoms associated with this disease. The article also has a very narrow view of the subject and doesn't consider that endometriosis can have more broader impacts than just pain, they failed to mention that anxiety and depression are more prevalent in women with endometriosis, given that cannabis use has also been found to correlate with anxiety and depression, I fear that the use of non-medical cannabis for pain management may exasperate other problems for women with endometriosis, a consequence I feel wasn't expressed in the article. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see the results of further research into the use of medical marijuana for endometriosis pain management. U3096514 (discusscontribs) 07:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC) U3096514[reply]

Further suggestions[edit source]

Hey, I really enjoyed reading through your topic! I went through and fixed up any grammatical errors I could find. A couple of things that I noticed when I was reading through was that some of your sentences were very long so I broke them up into two separate sentences. Also, something that I used to always do before someone else picked me up on it is when discussing studies always using the word found to describe results (e.g. Seligman found learned helplessness in dogs). Try using other words such as demonstrated, observed, reported etc so that it doesn't begin to sound too repetitive. I did this for you in a few places throughout. Also, its obvious that you've put a huge amount of time into researching the issue which is great! You do have a lot of references throughout, however, and I noticed in a few places you add multiple references for the one sentence. Maybe try only using the two most recent/applicable references and you might find you're able to reduce your reference list since its at nearly 1500 words and use the extra words else where. Hope this helps! --- u3067591

Chapter review and feedback[edit source]

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 very well researched and explained chapter which provides a balanced overview of relevant theory and research on an applied topic.
  2. Very well developed Overview; establishes the scope and importance of the problem and outlines the focus of the chapter. Similar, the Conclusion does a very good job of summarising.
  3. For additional feedback, see comments below and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theory is well described and explained.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well described and integrated, with a critical perspective evident.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Some paragraphs are overly long. Each paragraph should communicate one key idea in three to five sentences.
    2. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned").
  2. Layout
    1. Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings.
    2. The chapter was well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
  3. Learning features
    1. Interwiki links are well used.
    2. Excellent summary table.
    3. Images are well used.
    4. Effect use of mini-case studies.
  4. Spelling, grammar, and proofreading.
    1. Use serial commas.
    2. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's).
  5. Citations
      1. Select up to the top three citations per point (i.e., avoid citing four or more citations to support a single point).
      2. In-text citations should be in alphabetical order.
    1. References are not in full APA style e.g.,
      1. Check and correct italicisation.

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's Canvas 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 creative, interesting, effective overview of the key points.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Many of the comments about the book chapter also apply to this section.
  2. Well selected and structured content - not too much or too little.
  3. The presentation is well structured (Title, Overview, Body, Conclusion).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation is fun, easy to follow, and interesting to watch and listen to.
  2. However, the combination of the moving camera (somewhat distracting) and text-rich boxes makes the presentation somewhat difficult to follow visually. A more stable camera and less text (e.g., use bullet-points) could address this issue. However, the creative endeavour added flair and interest.
  3. Consider leaving slightly longer pauses between sentences. This can help the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. Remove student number from the video title.
  2. Audio and video recording quality was excellent.
  3. Images sources and copyright do not seem to be acknowledged.
  4. A copyright license for the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]