So far your topic development looks really interesting! One thing I would do is possible change some of the subheadings to make them more straightforward and easier to understand. Another suggestion is to possibly add some sort of case study to allow the readers to better understand a topic in a real world example--U3187486 (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Suggestions for internal links in see also[edit source]
Your chapter is looking really interesting, and easy to understand. One thing I would suggest is, if it is possible, trying to find a previous motivation and emotion book chapter that has even the slightest relation to your topic. --U3190522 (discuss • contribs) 10:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
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.
Promising 2-level heading structure - could benefit from further development by reducing the preliminary material about compassion as a stand-alone concept (instead summarise and link e.g., to other related chapter for more info) and expanding the material on the topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
Good development of key points for each section, with relevant citations.
Avoid providing too much background information. Briefly summarise generic concepts and provide internal wiki links to further information. Then focus most of the content on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.
Hi, I suggested that the case study can move at the end of the session, because if you put a case study at the beginning of theoretical framework, it is a little bit confusing, and try to give more details in the case study. --U3178984 (discuss • contribs) 03:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Overall, this chapter does a reasonably good job of explaining CFT from a theoretical point of view. Some research is included and some description of techniques. Practical application through a case study could help to illustrate CFT in action. Closer citation would be ideal. The quality of written could be improved towards a more professional standard.
Overall, this chapter provides a basic overview of relevant research.
Some claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags).
When describing important research findings, consider including a bit more detail about the methodology and indicating the size of effects in addition to whether or not there was an effect or relationship.
Greater emphasis on major reviews and/or meta-analyses would be helpful.
A general critical perspective is evident, but it lacks specificity about the reliability and validity of key studies.
Use 3rd person perspective rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you").
Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in brackets at the end of the sentence.
Remove full-stops from headings. If the heading is a question, it needs a question mark.
Minimal use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive. See example.
Basic use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding more in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
Use in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
Links to non-peer-reviewed sources should be moved to the external links section.
Check and correct use of ownership apostrophes (e.g., individuals vs. individual's vs individuals')..
Once an abbreviation is established (e.g., CFT), use it consistently. Don't set up an abbreviation and then not use it or only use it sometimes.
Abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e.., etc.) should only be used inside parentheses.
Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour).
More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
Remove unnecessary capitalisation.
Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented or coined expression; use quotation marks only for the first occurrence of the word or phrase, not for subsequent occurrences" (APA 7th ed., 2020, p. 159).
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.
Audio recording quality was OK. There was one glitch early on. Keyboard clicks were audible. Consider using an external microphone.
Visual display quality was excellent/very good/good/basic.
Image sources but not copyright status are provided.
A copyright license for the presentation is provided.
A copyright license for the presentation is provided in the video description but not in the meta-data.
A link to the book chapter is provided but it goes to the mobile version - ideally point to the web version which automatically show as the mobile version when a mobile device is used, but it doesn't work the other way around.
A link from the book chapter is provided.
A written description of the presentation is provided.