Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2019/Brain circuits and emotion

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possible reference[edit source]

I have found a reference regarding how childhood stress may impact emotion regulation as an adult and think that it might be helpful for your book chapter. Maybe possibly see if excessive drug and alcohol use have an effect on emotion regulation too? https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/pmc/articles/PMC3831978/

U3174136 (discusscontribs) 11:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heading casing[edit source]

FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for lower-cased headings (or sentence casing). For example, use:

==Cats and dogs==

rather than

==Cats and Dogs==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@U3175271: Just a reminder about this suggestion. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Title and sub-title[edit source]

  1. Excellent

User page[edit source]

  1. Created, with minimal description about self
  2. Add link to book chapter

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. 1 summarised with link to evidence

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Well developed 2-level heading structure, with meaningful headings that directly relate to the core topic.
  2. See earlier comment about Heading casing.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Rephrase to avoid starting sentences with "According to Author...."
  2. Key points are well developed for each section, with relevant citations.
  3. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles.
  4. Consider embedding one quiz question per major section.

Image[edit source]

  1. Several images (figures) are presented.
  2. Caption uses APA style (except colon should be a period).
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. Good.
  2. For full APA style:
    1. Use correct capitalisation
    2. Use correct italicisation
    3. Use the new recommended format for dois - http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2014/07/how-to-use-the-new-doi-format-in-apa-style.html
    4. Do not include issue numbers for journals which are continuously numbered within a volume

Resources[edit source]

  1. See also
    1. Good
  2. External links
    1. Probably should be a reference
    2. Maybe a TED talk or something like that?

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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 UCLearn Canvas, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overview - good. Consider adding a case study or example. Consider adding an image.
  2. For additional feedback, see comments below and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. There is good coverage of theory. Perhaps less detail could be provided in favour of more conceptual theory (e.g., the description of the emotional threat response circuit seems perhaps overly detailed. Considers ways of explaining this more simply.)

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.
  2. Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is good.
  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.
  3. Learning features
    1. Excellent use of interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive.
    2. No use of embedded links to related book chapters. Embedding interwiki links links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    3. Use bullet-points and numbered lists (e.g., for External links), per Tutorial 1.
    4. Excellent use of images.
    5. Good use of tables.
    6. Good use of feature boxes.
    7. Basic use of quizzes. But the question is very complex/difficult and doesn't necessarily reflect broader conceptual understanding.
    8. No use of case studies.
  4. Grammar
    1. Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals').[1].
  5. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
    2. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style to refer to each Table and each Figure (e.g., do not use italics, check and correct capitalisation).
    3. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. A full stop is needed after "et al" (i.e., "et al.").
    4. References are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. Check and correct use of capitalisation.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~4 logged, useful, social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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 an insufficient presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. The presentation is poorly structured. In particular, it lacks a Title, Overview (e.g., explaining focus questions or the structure), and Conclusion.
  2. There is too much content, in too much detail, presented within the allocated time frame. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to do a small amount well than a large amount poorly.

Communication[edit source]

  1. Consider slowing down and leaving 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.
  2. Less text should be presented and the font size should be larger to make it easier to read.
  3. The visual communication is supplemented by images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The chapter title but not the sub-title are used in the video title - the latter would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. The chapter title and sub-title are not used on the opening slide - these would helps to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  3. Audio and video recording quality was very good.
  4. Image sources and their copyright status are provided.
  5. A copyright license for the presentation is provided.
  6. A link to the book chapter is provided, but it tries to link to a non-existent section.
  7. A link from the book chapter is/not provided.
  8. A written description of the presentation is/not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]