Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The topic development submission has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is below, plus see the general feedback page. Please also check the page history for 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. Marks are available via UCLearn. Marks are based on the latest version before the due date.
Excellent – key points are well developed for each section
However, there is too much here. The plan is 3,000 words and the final chapter is a maximum of 4,000 words
Excellent use of citations
Good balance of theory and research
For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings
Avoid providing too much background information. Aim to briefly summarise general concepts and provide internal links to relevant book chapters and/or Wikipedia pages for further information. Then focus most of the content on directly answering the core question(s) posed by the chapter sub-title.
Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks.
A link to the book chapter is provided
Rename the link to the book chapter to make it more user-friendly (see Tutorial 02)
Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Heya,
I noticed when in-text referencing you would do "Name et al., (2025) rest of sentence" and I wanted to suggest re-formatting it as "Name et al. (2025), rest of sentence" (essentially moving the comma to after the year). I'm pretty sure this is how the comma is supposed to be added, but I'm not 100% sure so don't worry about it if you disagree :3 U3249300 (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.
Overall, the quality of written expression is reasonably good
Use active (e.g., "this chapter explores") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter has explored" or "this chapter will explore") [1][2]
Some sentences could be explained more clearly
Some sentences are overly long. Strive for the simplest expression. Consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences. Shorter words and sentences are more readable. Try conducting a readability analysis such as via https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/. This chapter gets a score of . Aim for 50+.
Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences.
"People" is often a better term than "individuals". People is used 6 times and individuals is used 53 times in this chapter.
Layout
Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
Spell out abbreviations on their first use, to explain them to the reader
Spelling
Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour)
Proofreading
More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
Reasonably good 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 even 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.
Reasonably good use of image(s)
Basic use of table(s)
Basic use of feature box(es)
Reasonably good use of case studies or examples
Very good use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
Very good use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Use alphabetical order
Very good use of external links in the "External links" section