Hi, really interesting topic you have chosen! I think it could be interesting to talk about what type of people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, maybe something about the different personality types if there is any research!--U3187486 (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a really interesting topic. Within the overview the sentence 'The parties responsible for such deceptions usually include groups with ill intentions or groups more powerful in nature.' seems to be very factual and i would suggest adding a reference here if you can. I would also suggest linking the conspiracy theories to other wikipedia pages. It might be interesting to assess the maintenance of conspiracy theories. For example how the social motives end up reinforcing members to continue to believe the theory.--U3187381 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 17 October 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.
I did a few edits of your 'what is a conspiracy' section, I hope that's ok. I think you could discuss some major conspiracy theories that stemmed from large events such as 9/11, the Kennedy assassination and walking on the moon and how even those these had simple easy explanations, such large conspiracy theories were born. Also how people respond to having a conspiracy theory that they believe in disproven. Good luck! --U3201178 (discusscontribs) 05:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Overall, this chapter makes insufficient use of research.
Many claims are unreferenced (e.g., see the [factual?] tags). There is a kind of irony that a chapter about conspiracy theories is lacking sufficient citation.
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.
Sections which include sub-sections should also include an introductory paragraph (which doesn't need a separate heading) before branching into the sub-headings.
There are some dot points that may have been intended as headings - if so, use the default wiki heading styles.
Minimal use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text more interactive. See example.
No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding 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.
Basic use of image(s). Figure 2 has been removed probably due to a lack of appropriate copyright information.
No use of table(s).
No use of feature box(es).
No use of quiz(zes).
The grammar for many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags).
Once an abbreviation is established (e.g., US), use it consistently. Don't set up an abbreviation and then not use it or only use it sometimes.
Spelling can be improved (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags).
More proofreading is needed to fix typos and bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard.
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).
Figures and tables
Provide more detailed Figure captions to help connect the figure to the text.
Refer to each Table and Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., see Figure 1).
Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
Check and correct use of full-stops.
Do not include author initials.
The year is missing from some citations.
If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either:
in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or
in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020)
Use ampersand (&) inside brackets and "and" outside brackets.
References are not in full APA style. For example:
Hi there, I believe that chapter would benefit from an interactive learning feature. I think this would engage the audience more. I think this chapter would also benefit from a feature box at the top of the page for focus questions. This will allow your views to quickly find the important information the chapter will hold. U3185242 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)