Jump to content

Template:MEBF/2025

From Wikiversity

Feedback template for the book chapter exercise for the motivation and emotion unit.

Designed to be transcluded on a chapter talk page.

Simple example

Simple example

[edit source]

See also detailed example

<!-- Official feedback -->
{{MEBF/2025
|1=
<!-- Overall comments... -->
#
|2=
<!-- Overview comments... -->
# 
|3=
<!-- Theory comments... -->
# 
|4=
<!-- Research comments... -->
# 
|5=
<!-- Integration comments... -->
# 
|6=
<!-- Conclusion comments... -->
# 
|7=
<!-- Style comments... -->
# 
|8=
<!-- Learning features comments... -->
#
|9=
<!-- Social contribution comments... -->
#
}}
~~~~

gives

Book 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. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall

[edit source]

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Detailed example

[edit source]

Example use of the template, with some common feedback comments:

<!-- Official book chapter feedback -->
{{MEBF/2025
|1=
<!-- Overall comments... -->
# This is an outstanding chapter that successfully integrates psychological theory and research in a highly readable way to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem
# This is an excellent chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem
# This is a very good chapter that makes very good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem
# This is a reasonably good chapter that makes good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem
# This is a basic, sufficient chapter
# This is an insufficient chapter
# The main area(s) for potential improvement:
#* use the best psychological theory about the topic
#* more detailed review of the best psychological research about the topic 
#* quality of written expression
#* tackle the target topic more directly; this chapter [[wikt:beat around the bush|beats around the bush]]
#* overuse of genAI—express more in your own words; watch out for [[w:AI slop|AI slop]]
#* I suspect that the [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment#Assessment items|recommended 75 hours]] were not invested in preparing this chapter
<!-- Overall - GenAI -->
#* [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Using generative AI|genAI use]] is appropriately acknowledged
#* In some places, there is overreliance on genAI
#* [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Using generative AI|GenAI use]] has not been appropriately acknowledged in edit summaries with links to the conversation sources; it appears that the feedback about the topic development in this respect has gone unheeded; if so, it violates academic integrity principles.
#* I suspect there may be unacknowledged use of [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Using generative AI|genAI output]]; if so, it violates academic integrity principles
<!-- Overall – Citations -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims
# Only cite sources that you consult
# All citations need to be in the References
<!-- Overall – Word count -->
# Under the [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter#Wordcount|maximum word count]], so there is room to expand
# Over the [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter#Wordcount|maximum word count]]. Content beyond 4,000 words has been ignored for marking purposes.
<!-- Overall – Copyedits -->
# For additional feedback, see the following comments and [ these copyedits]
|2=
<!-- Overview – Comments... -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Underdeveloped
<!-- Overview – Scenario -->
<!-- Overview – Scenario - Description -->
# Engaging scenario or case study
# Reasonably engaging scenario or case study
# Basic scenario or case study
# Use a more practical, real-life scenario; move review of research into a subsequent section
# Add an engaging case study or scenario
<!-- Overview – Scenario - Feature -->
# Figure 1 is relevant to the scenario
# Figure 1 could be more relevant to the scenario
# Include a relevant image
<!-- Overview – Scenario - Feature -->
# Scenario uses an appropriate feature box
# Put the scenario in a feature box
<!-- Overview – Explains problem -->
# Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon
# Explains the psychological problem or phenomenon reasonably well/in a basic way
# Briefly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon; provide more detail
# Description of problem is too long/overly complicated—explain the psychological problem or phenomenon in a simpler way. Move detail into subsequent sections.
# Clarity of written expression can be improved
<!-- Overview – Focus questions -->
# The focus questions are excellent (clear and relevant)/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/promising/insufficient
# The focus questions could be improved by:
## being more specific to the topic (i.e., the sub-title)
## matching the top-level headings more closely
## being [[w:Open-ended question|open-ended]] rather than [[w:Closed-ended question|closed-ended]]
## splitting double-barrelled questions into separate questions
## using bullet points as taught in [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## being presented in a feature box to help guide the reader (fixed)
# Add focus questions in a feature box
# See copyedits for examples of possible improvements
|3=
<!-- Theory comments... -->
<!-- Theory – Breadth -->
# Excellent—key theories are very well explained and applied
# Very good—key theories are well explained and applied; minor areas for improvements
# Reasonably good—relevant theories are selected, described, and explained, with some room for improvement
# Basic—a basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained; there is considerable room for improvement
# A promising range of ideas are presented but it is far from clear how this material is derived from a first person reading of the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic
# Insufficient use of relevant psychological theory about this topic
# Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., definitions). Instead, summarise and link to related resources (i.e., other book chapters and/or Wikipedia articles). Increase emphasis on [[wikt:substantive|substantive]] aspects of theory that relate directly to the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
<!-- Theory – Builds on -->
# Builds exceptionally well on [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
# Builds effectively on [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and/or/but not related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
# Builds reasonably well on [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and/or/but not related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
# Builds somewhat on other [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and/or/but not related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
# Builds in a basic way on [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and/or/but not related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
# Builds on one previous [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and/or/but not related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
# Build more strongly on [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and/or/but not related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
# Doesn't build on [[w:|Wikipedia]] articles and/or/but not related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]] by embedding interwiki links for key terms
<!-- Theory – Depth -->
# Insightful/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient depth is provided about key theory(ies)
<!-- Theory – Tables/Figures/Lists -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of tables, figures, and/or lists to clearly convey key theoretical information
<!-- Theory – Citations -->
# Key citations are well used
# In some/many places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the {{f}} tags)
# Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the {{f}} tags)
# If you didn't consult an original source (e.g., ?), cite it as a [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/secondary-sources secondary source]
# If you didn't consult an original source, don't cite it
<!-- Theory – Examples -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
# Consider using more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
# Use more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
# Insufficient use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
|4=
<!-- Research comments... -->
<!-- Research – Key findings -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient review of relevant research
# Excellent emphasis on systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses
# Greater emphasis on systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses would be ideal
# More detail about key studies would be ideal
# Claims are well referenced
# In some/many places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the {{f}} tags)
# Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the {{f}} tags)
<!-- Research – Critical thinking -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient [[w:Critical thinking|critical thinking]] about relevant research is evident
# [[w:Critical thinking|Critical thinking]] about research could be further evidenced by:
## describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies
## considering the strength of relationships
## acknowledging limitations
## pointing out critiques/counterarguments
## suggesting ''specific'' directions for future research
|5=
<!-- Integration comments... -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient integration between the most relevant theory(ies) and the best research
# The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance
# Insufficient integration with related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|chapters]]
|6=
<!-- Conclusion comments... -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic summary and conclusion
# Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best psychological theory and research about the topic
# Reads like generic [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Using generative AI|genAI output]]; write more compellingly in your own words
# Is this section based on [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Using generative AI|genAI output]]? If so, this was not acknowledged in the edit summary.
# Reminds the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest
# Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest
<!-- Conclusion – Key points -->
# Key points are well summarised
# Key points are summarised in a basic way
# Summarise key points
<!-- Conclusion – Focus questions -->
# The focus questions are addressed
# The take-away messages for each focus question could be spelt out more clearly
# Address the focus questions
<!-- Conclusion – Take-home messages -->
# Clear take-home message(s)
# Add practical, take-home message(s)
<!-- Conclusion – Word count -->
# Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count
|7=
<!-- Written expression – Style comments... -->
<!-- Written expression – Written expression -->
# Written expression
## The quality of written expression is excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic
## The quality of written expression is OK but there are several aspects which are below professional standard
## The quality of written expression is below professional standard. [https://www.canberra.edu.au/current-students/study-skills UC Study Skills] assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills.
## Use active (e.g., "this chapter explores" or "this chapter explored") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter will explore" or "this chapter has explored") [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/active-passive-voice][https://www.grammarly.com/blog/active-vs-passive-voice/]
## The target audience is international, not domestic. [http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/australia-population/ Only 0.3% of the world human population lives in Australia].
## Remove excessive use of bold font
<!-- Written expression – Sentences -->
## Some/many sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the {{explain}} and {{rewrite}} tags)
## Some/many sentences are overly long. Strive for the simplest expression. Consider splitting longer sentences into two shorter sentences. Shorter words and sentences are more [[w:Readability|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+.
## 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 [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] at the end of the sentence.
<!-- Written expression – Paragraphs -->
## Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences.
## Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences.
## Bullet points are overused. Develop more of the bullet point statements into full sentences and paragraphs.
<!-- Written expression – Language -->
## Use [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/first-second-and-third-person/ 3rd person perspective] (e.g., "it") instead of 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") in the main text. 1st or 2nd person can work well for case studies or feature boxes.
## Avoid phrases such as “as previously mentioned” or “as noted above,” as these add little value and can disrupt flow. If referencing another part of the chapter is necessary, use [[w:Help#Section linking|section linking]].
## Embed direct quotes within sentences and paragraphs, rather than presenting them [[wikt:holus-bolus|holus-bolus]]
## "Individuals" is overused. "People" is usually a clearer term than "individuals". Use ''individuals'' to highlight each person separately (e.g., “individual test scores”) and ''people'' when referring to humans more generally.
## Remove [[w:weasel words|weasel words]]—they add bulk without improving meaning
## Use permanent, rather than relative, time references. For example, instead of "20 years ago", refer to something like "at the beginning of the 21st century". In this way, the text will survive better into the future, without needing to be rewritten.
## Avoid overly emotive language (e.g,. *) in science-based communication
<!-- Written expression – Layout -->
# Layout
## The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections
## The headings could be more clearly aligned with the focus questions
## The structure is overly complicated; simplify and integrate
## The structure is overly complicated; aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Introduction and Conclusion
## The chapter structure is underdeveloped; expand by using subheadings
## Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings
## Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional numbers, italics, bold, and/or change in font size)
## See earlier comment about [[#Heading casing|heading casing]]
## Provide more descriptive headings
## Move links from headings into their first mention in text
## Remove abbreviations/citations from headings
## Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see {{expand}} tags)
## Integrate learning features rather than having it as a stand-alone section
## The Overview and Conclusion should not have subheadings (fixed)
## Remove colons (:) from the ends of headings
<!-- Written expression – Grammar -->
# Grammar and spelling are excellent
# Grammar
## The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see {{g}} tags); consider using a grammar checking tool, Studiosity, and/or peer feedback
## Check and make [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma/ correct use of commas]
## Check and make correct use of [https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/em-dash-en-dash-how-to-use em dashes (instead of hyphens)] to set off an amplifying or explanatory element
## [https://www.grammarly.com/blog/punctuation-capitalization/possessive-apostrophe/ Possessive apostrophes] are not used correctly (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')
## Check and correct use of [https://www.google.com.au/search?q=grammar+that+vs+who that vs. who]
## Check and correct use of [https://www.google.com.au/search?q=affect+vs.+effect+grammar affect vs. effect]
## Check and correct use of [http://www.colonsemicolon.com/ semicolons (;) and colons (:)]
## Use past tense when describing research studies, although implications of findings could be in the present tense
<!-- Written expression – Abbreviations -->
## Abbreviations
### Only use abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc. inside [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]], otherwise spell them out
### Check and correct formatting of abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e., etc.)
### Use abbreviations sparingly. Do not use abbreviations for minor/infrequently used terms.
### Spell out abbreviations on their first use, to explain them to the reader
### Once an abbreviation has been established (e.g., PTSD), use it consistently afterwards
### Only introduce abbreviations which are subsequently used
<!-- Written expression – Spelling -->
# Spelling
## Use [https://www.abc.net.au/education/learn-english/australian-vs-american-spelling/11244196 Australian spelling] (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour)
## Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the {{sp}} tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages.
<!-- Written expression – Proofreading -->
# Proofreading
## More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
## Remove unnecessary capitalisation – [https://polishedpaper.com/blog/capitalization-apa-style more info]
<!-- Written expression – APA style -->
# APA style
## Use [[w:Serial comma|serial comma]]s[https://www.buzzfeed.com/adamdavis/the-oxford-comma-is-extremely-important-and-everyone-should][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBx8ooDupXY]
## Use [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization/diseases-disorders-therapies sentence casing for disorders, therapies, theories, etc.]
## [https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/numbers Express numbers under 10 using words (e.g., two) and 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99)]
<!-- Written expression – APA style - Quotes -->
## Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used ... as slang, or as an invented or coined expression" ([https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition APA Style 7th ed.], 2020, p. 159)
## "Use quotation marks only for the first occurrence of the word or phrase, not for subsequent occurrences" ([https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition APA Style 7th ed.], 2020, p. 159)
## Direct quotes need page numbers—even better, communicate about concepts in your own words
## Direct quotes are overused—it is better to communicate about concepts in your own words
<!-- Written expression – Figures -->
## Figures
### Very well/Well/Reasonably well captioned
### Brief captions; provide more detail to help connect the figure to the text
### Use this format for captions: '''Figure X'''. Descriptive caption goes here in sentence casing. [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Figures|See example]].
### Add captions
<!-- Written expression – Figures - Citations -->
### Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style
### Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text. Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., "(see Figure 1)"; do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation).
### Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., "(see Figure 1)")
<!-- Written expression – Figures - Other -->
### Some image uploads were removed because of a lack of sufficient/appropriate copyright information
### Numbering needs correcting
### Adjust some image sizes to make them easier to read (increase size) and/or less dominant (decrease size)
<!-- Written expression – Tables -->
## Tables
### Very well/Well/Reasonably well captioned
### Brief caption(s); provide more explanatory detail about the table
### Add an APA style caption to each table ([[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Tables|see example]])
<!-- Written expression – Tables - Citations -->
### Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style
### Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text
### Refer to each Table using APA style (e.g., do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation)
### Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1)
<!-- Written expression – Citations -->
# In some/many places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the {{f}} tags)
# Secondary citations are overused; strive to consult primary sources
## Citations use excellent [https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition APA Style (7th ed.)]
## Citations use very good/good/reasonably good/basic/poor [https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition APA Style (7th ed.)]
### 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 [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] (Smith et al., 2020)
### Do not include author first name or initials
### Use ampersand (&) inside [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] and "and" outside parentheses
### List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname (e.g., Giraffe, 2024; Zebra & Aardvark, 2020)
### A full stop is needed after "et al" (i.e., "et al.") because it is an abbreviation of [[wikt:et alii|et alii]]
### Use a comma between the author(s) and year for citations in [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]]
### Select up to a maximum of three citations per point (i.e., avoid citing four or more citations to support a single point)
### Check and correct placement of full-stops
### Move embedded links to academic peer-reviewed sources into the [[{{PAGENAME}}#References|References]] as APA style citations with hyperlinked dois
### Move embedded links to non-peer reviewed sources into the [[{{PAGENAME}}#External links|External links]] section; only cite peer-reviewed sources
## For citations, use APA style or wiki style, but not both
<!-- Written expression – References -->
## References use excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/poor APA style:
### Check and correct use of italicisation
### Check and correct use of capitalisation[https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/capitalization]
### Separate page numbers using an [[w:Dash#En dash|en dash]] (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
### Include hyperlinked dois (for 1-click access)
### Provide the full titles of journals
### Remove "Retrieved from "
### Use alphabetical order
### Move Wikipedia links into the [[{{PAGENAME}}#See also|See also]] section
### Move non-peer reviewed sources into the [[{{PAGENAME}}#External links|External links]] section
### Remove bullet-points; add hanging indent
|8=
<!-- Learning features comments... -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient use of learning features
<!-- Learning features – Wikipedia embedded links -->
# Excellent use of embedded in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|interwiki links]] to Wikipedia articles
# Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/One use of embedded in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|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 [[Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Nutrition and anxiety|example]].
# Use [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|interwiki links]] (rather than external links) to Wikipedia articles, per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
# Add embedded in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|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 [[Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Nutrition and anxiety|example]].
<!-- Learning features – Wikiversity embedded links -->
# Excellent use of embedded in-text links to related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|book chapters]]
# Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/One use of embedded in-text links to related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|book chapters]]. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
# Use in-text [[m:Help:Interwiki linking|interwiki links]], rather than external links to Wikiversity chapters, per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
# Move embedded links to non-peer-reviewed sources to the [[{{PAGENAME}}#External links|External links]] section
# Add embedded in-text links to related [[Motivation and emotion/Book|book chapters]]. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
<!-- Learning features – Figures, tables, feature boxes, scenarios -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of figure(s)
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of table(s)
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of feature box(es)
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of scenarios, case studies, or examples
<!-- Learning features – Quizzes -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
# The quiz questions could be improved by being more focused on the key points and/or take-home messages
# The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than as a set of questions at the end
# No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
<!-- Learning features – See also -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of the [[{{PAGENAME}}#See also|See also]] section
## Use bullet points per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Rename links per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Use internal linking style per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Also include links to related book chapters
## Also include links to related Wikipedia articles
## Use [https://www.masterclass.com/articles/sentence-case-explained sentence casing]
## Use alphabetical order
## Include sources in [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] after the link
## Move peer-reviewed articles into the [[{{PAGENAME}}#References|References]] section and cite
## Move external links into the [[{{PAGENAME}}#References|External links]] section
## Add more links
# [[{{PAGENAME}}#See also|See also]] section not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count
<!-- Learning features – External links -->
# Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of the [[{{PAGENAME}}#External links|External links]] section
## Use bullet points per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Rename links per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
## Use [https://www.masterclass.com/articles/sentence-case-explained sentence casing]
## Use alphabetical order
## Include sources in [[w:Bracket#Parentheses|parentheses]] after the link
## Move Wikipedia/Wikiversity links to the [[{{PAGENAME}}#See also|See also]] section
## Move peer-reviewed articles to the [[{{PAGENAME}}#References|References]] section and cite
## Target an international audience
## Add more links
## Link to the top 3-6 external resources about this topic
# [[{{PAGENAME}}#External links|External links]] section not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count
|9=
<!-- Social contribution comments... -->
# ~ logged, useful, mostly minor/moderate/major contributions with [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Summarising social contributions#How to add direct links to contributions|direct links to evidence]]
# ~ logged contributions without [[Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Summarising social contributions#How to add direct links to contributions|direct links to evidence]], so unable to easily verify and assess. See [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials|tutorials]] for guidance about how to get direct links to evidence.
# Thanks for the Wiki Commons uploads
# Thanks very much for your extensive contributions
# Use a numbered list per [[Motivation and emotion/Tutorials/Wiki editing|Tutorial 02]]
# No logged contributions
}}
~~~~

gives

Book 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. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Overall

[edit source]
  1. This is an outstanding chapter that successfully integrates psychological theory and research in a highly readable way to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem
  2. This is an excellent chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem
  3. This is a very good chapter that makes very good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem
  4. This is a reasonably good chapter that makes good use of psychological theory and research to address a real-world phenomenon or problem
  5. This is a basic, sufficient chapter
  6. This is an insufficient chapter
  7. The main area(s) for potential improvement:
    • use the best psychological theory about the topic
    • more detailed review of the best psychological research about the topic
    • quality of written expression
    • tackle the target topic more directly; this chapter beats around the bush
    • overuse of genAI—express more in your own words; watch out for AI slop
    • I suspect that the recommended 75 hours were not invested in preparing this chapter
    • genAI use is appropriately acknowledged
    • In some places, there is overreliance on genAI
    • GenAI use has not been appropriately acknowledged in edit summaries with links to the conversation sources; it appears that the feedback about the topic development in this respect has gone unheeded; if so, it violates academic integrity principles.
    • I suspect there may be unacknowledged use of genAI output; if so, it violates academic integrity principles
  8. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations to support claims
  9. Only cite sources that you consult
  10. All citations need to be in the References
  11. Under the maximum word count, so there is room to expand
  12. Over the maximum word count. Content beyond 4,000 words has been ignored for marking purposes.
  13. For additional feedback, see the following comments and [ these copyedits]
  1. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Underdeveloped
  2. Engaging scenario or case study
  3. Reasonably engaging scenario or case study
  4. Basic scenario or case study
  5. Use a more practical, real-life scenario; move review of research into a subsequent section
  6. Add an engaging case study or scenario
  7. Figure 1 is relevant to the scenario
  8. Figure 1 could be more relevant to the scenario
  9. Include a relevant image
  10. Scenario uses an appropriate feature box
  11. Put the scenario in a feature box
  12. Clearly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon
  13. Explains the psychological problem or phenomenon reasonably well/in a basic way
  14. Briefly explains the psychological problem or phenomenon; provide more detail
  15. Description of problem is too long/overly complicated—explain the psychological problem or phenomenon in a simpler way. Move detail into subsequent sections.
  16. Clarity of written expression can be improved
  17. The focus questions are excellent (clear and relevant)/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/promising/insufficient
  18. The focus questions could be improved by:
    1. being more specific to the topic (i.e., the sub-title)
    2. matching the top-level headings more closely
    3. being open-ended rather than closed-ended
    4. splitting double-barrelled questions into separate questions
    5. using bullet points as taught in Tutorial 02
    6. being presented in a feature box to help guide the reader (fixed)
  19. Add focus questions in a feature box
  20. See copyedits for examples of possible improvements
  1. Excellent—key theories are very well explained and applied
  2. Very good—key theories are well explained and applied; minor areas for improvements
  3. Reasonably good—relevant theories are selected, described, and explained, with some room for improvement
  4. Basic—a basic range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained; there is considerable room for improvement
  5. A promising range of ideas are presented but it is far from clear how this material is derived from a first person reading of the best peer-reviewed psychological theory and research about this topic
  6. Insufficient use of relevant psychological theory about this topic
  7. Reduce general theoretical background (e.g., definitions). Instead, summarise and link to related resources (i.e., other book chapters and/or Wikipedia articles). Increase emphasis on substantive aspects of theory that relate directly to the specific topic (i.e., the sub-title question).
  8. Builds exceptionally well on Wikipedia articles and related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  9. Builds effectively on Wikipedia articles and/or/but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  10. Builds reasonably well on Wikipedia articles and/or/but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  11. Builds somewhat on other Wikipedia articles and/or/but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  12. Builds in a basic way on Wikipedia articles and/or/but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  13. Builds on one previous Wikipedia articles and/or/but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  14. Build more strongly on Wikipedia articles and/or/but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  15. Doesn't build on Wikipedia articles and/or/but not related chapters by embedding interwiki links for key terms
  16. Insightful/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient depth is provided about key theory(ies)
  17. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of tables, figures, and/or lists to clearly convey key theoretical information
  18. Key citations are well used
  19. In some/many places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  20. Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  21. If you didn't consult an original source (e.g., ?), cite it as a secondary source
  22. If you didn't consult an original source, don't cite it
  23. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
  24. Consider using more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
  25. Use more examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
  26. Insufficient use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts
  1. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient review of relevant research
  2. Excellent emphasis on systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses
  3. Greater emphasis on systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses would be ideal
  4. More detail about key studies would be ideal
  5. Claims are well referenced
  6. In some/many places, there is insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  7. Insufficient use of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  8. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient critical thinking about relevant research is evident
  9. Critical thinking about research could be further evidenced by:
    1. describing the methodology (e.g., sample, measures) in important studies
    2. considering the strength of relationships
    3. acknowledging limitations
    4. pointing out critiques/counterarguments
    5. suggesting specific directions for future research
  1. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient integration between the most relevant theory(ies) and the best research
  2. The chapter places more emphasis on theory than on research; strive for an integrated balance
  3. Insufficient integration with related chapters
  1. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic summary and conclusion
  2. Insufficient as a cohesive summary of the best psychological theory and research about the topic
  3. Reads like generic genAI output; write more compellingly in your own words
  4. Is this section based on genAI output? If so, this was not acknowledged in the edit summary.
  5. Reminds the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest
  6. Remind the reader about the importance of the problem or phenomenon of interest
  7. Key points are well summarised
  8. Key points are summarised in a basic way
  9. Summarise key points
  10. The focus questions are addressed
  11. The take-away messages for each focus question could be spelt out more clearly
  12. Address the focus questions
  13. Clear take-home message(s)
  14. Add practical, take-home message(s)
  15. Not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count
  1. Written expression
    1. The quality of written expression is excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic
    2. The quality of written expression is OK but there are several aspects which are below professional standard
    3. The quality of written expression is below professional standard. UC Study Skills assistance is recommended to help improve writing skills.
    4. Use active (e.g., "this chapter explores" or "this chapter explored") rather than passive voice (e.g., "this chapter will explore" or "this chapter has explored") [1][2]
    5. The target audience is international, not domestic. Only 0.3% of the world human population lives in Australia.
    6. Remove excessive use of bold font
    7. Some/many sentences could be explained more clearly (e.g., see the [explain?] and [improve clarity] tags)
    8. Some/many 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+.
    9. 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 parentheses at the end of the sentence.
    10. Some paragraphs are overly long. Communicate one key idea per paragraph in three to five sentences.
    11. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. Communicate one idea per paragraph using three to five sentences.
    12. Bullet points are overused. Develop more of the bullet point statements into full sentences and paragraphs.
    13. Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") instead of 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") in the main text. 1st of 2nd person can work well for case studies or feature boxes.
    14. Avoid phrases such as “as previously mentioned” or “as noted above,” as these add little value and can disrupt flow. If referencing another part of the chapter is necessary, use section linking.## Embed direct quotes within sentences and paragraphs, rather than presenting them holus-bolus
    15. "Individuals" is overused. "People" is usually a clearer term than "individuals". Use individuals to highlight each person separately (e.g., “individual test scores”) and people when referring to humans more generally.
    16. Remove weasel words—they add bulk without improving meaning
    17. Use permanent, rather than relative, time references. For example, instead of "20 years ago", refer to something like "at the beginning of the 21st century". In this way, the text will survive better into the future, without needing to be rewritten.
    18. Avoid overly emotive language (e.g,. *) in science-based communication
  2. Layout
    1. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections
    2. The headings could be more clearly aligned with the focus questions
    3. The structure is overly complicated; simplify and integrate
    4. The structure is overly complicated; aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Introduction and Conclusion
    5. The chapter structure is underdeveloped; expand by using subheadings
    6. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading – use 0 or 2+ sub-headings
    7. Use the default heading style (e.g., remove additional numbers, italics, bo]ld, and/or change in font size)
    8. See earlier comment about heading casing
    9. Provide more descriptive headings
    10. Move links from headings into their first mention in text
    11. Remove abbreviations/citations from headings
    12. Include an introductory paragraph before branching into the sub-sections (see [Provide more detail] tags)
    13. Integrate learning features rather than having it as a stand-alone section
    14. The Overview and Conclusion should not have subheadings (fixed)
    15. Remove colons (:) from the ends of headings
  3. Grammar and spelling are excellent
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see [grammar?] tags); consider using a grammar checking tool, Studiosity, and/or peer feedback
    2. Check and make correct use of commas
    3. Check and make correct use of em dashes (instead of hyphens) to set off an amplifying or explanatory element
    4. Possessive apostrophes are not used correctly (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')
    5. Check and correct use of that vs. who
    6. Check and correct use of affect vs. effect
    7. Check and correct use of semicolons (;) and colons (:)
    8. Use past tense when describing research studies, although implications of findings could be in the present tense
    9. Abbreviations
      1. Only use abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc. inside parentheses, otherwise spell them out
      2. Check and correct formatting of abbreviations (such as e.g., i.e., etc.)
      3. Use abbreviations sparingly. Do not use abbreviations for minor/infrequently used terms.
      4. Spell out abbreviations on their first use, to explain them to the reader
      5. Once an abbreviation has been established (e.g., PTSD), use it consistently afterwards
      6. Only introduce abbreviations which are subsequently used
  5. Spelling
    1. Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour)
    2. Some words are misspelt (e.g., see the [spelling?] tags). Spell-checking tools are available in most internet browsers and word processing software packages.
  6. Proofreading
    1. More proofreading is needed (e.g., fix punctuation and typographical errors) to bring the quality of written expression closer to a professional standard
    2. Remove unnecessary capitalisation – more info
  7. APA style
    1. Use serial commas[3][4]
    2. Use sentence casing for disorders, therapies, theories, etc.
    3. Express numbers under 10 using words (e.g., two) and 10 and over using numerals (e.g., 99)
    4. Use double (not single) quotation marks "to introduce a word or phrase used ... as slang, or as an invented or coined expression" (APA Style 7th ed., 2020, p. 159)
    5. "Use quotation marks only for the first occurrence of the word or phrase, not for subsequent occurrences" (APA Style 7th ed., 2020, p. 159)
    6. Direct quotes need page numbers—even better, communicate about concepts in your own words
    7. Direct quotes are overused—it is better to communicate about concepts in your own words
    8. Figures
      1. Very well/Well/Reasonably well captioned
      2. Brief captions; provide more detail to help connect the figure to the text
      3. Use this format for captions: Figure X. Descriptive caption goes here in sentence casing. See example.
      4. Add captions
      5. Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style
      6. Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text. Refer to each Figure using APA style (e.g., "(see Figure 1)"; do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation).
      7. Refer to each Figure at least once within the main text (e.g., "(see Figure 1)")
      8. Some image uploads were removed because of a lack of sufficient/appropriate copyright information
      9. Numbering needs correcting
      10. Adjust some image sizes to make them easier to read (increase size) and/or less dominant (decrease size)
    9. Tables
      1. Very well/Well/Reasonably well captioned
      2. Brief caption(s); provide more explanatory detail about the table
      3. Add an APA style caption to each table (see example)
      4. Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text using APA style
      5. Each Table is referred to at least once within the main text
      6. Refer to each Table using APA style (e.g., do not use bold, italics, check and correct capitalisation)
      7. Refer to each Table at least once within the main text (e.g., see Table 1)
  8. In some/many places, better use could be made of academic, peer-reviewed citations (e.g., see the [factual?] tags)
  9. Secondary citations are overused; strive to consult primary sources
    1. Citations use excellent APA Style (7th ed.)
    2. Citations use very good/good/reasonably good/basic/poor APA Style (7th ed.)
      1. If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either:
        1. in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or
        2. in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020)
      2. Do not include author first name or initials
      3. Use ampersand (&) inside parentheses and "and" outside parentheses
      4. List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname (e.g., Giraffe, 2024; Zebra & Aardvark, 2020)
      5. A full stop is needed after "et al" (i.e., "et al.") because it is an abbreviation of et alii
      6. Use a comma between the author(s) and year for citations in parentheses
      7. Select up to a maximum of three citations per point (i.e., avoid citing four or more citations to support a single point)
      8. Check and correct placement of full-stops
      9. Move embedded links to academic peer-reviewed sources into the References as APA style citations with hyperlinked dois
      10. Move embedded links to non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section; only cite peer-reviewed sources
    3. For citations, use APA style or wiki style, but not both
    4. References use excellent/very good/good/reasonably good/basic/poor APA style:
      1. Check and correct use of italicisation
      2. Check and correct use of capitalisation[5]
      3. Separate page numbers using an en dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
      4. Include hyperlinked dois (for 1-click access)
      5. Provide the full titles of journals
      6. Remove "Retrieved from "
      7. Use alphabetical order
      8. Move Wikipedia links into the See also section
      9. Move non-peer reviewed sources into the External links section
      10. Remove bullet-points; add hanging indent
  1. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient use of learning features
  2. Excellent use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles
  3. Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/One 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.
  4. Use interwiki links (rather than external links) to Wikipedia articles, per Tutorial 02
  5. Add 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.
  6. Excellent use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters
  7. Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/One 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.
  8. Use in-text interwiki links, rather than external links to Wikiversity chapters, per Tutorial 02
  9. Move embedded links to non-peer-reviewed sources to the External links section
  10. Add 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.
  11. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of figure(s)
  12. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of table(s)
  13. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/No use of feature box(es)
  14. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of scenarios, case studies, or examples
  15. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
  16. The quiz questions could be improved by being more focused on the key points and/or take-home messages
  17. The quiz questions could be more effective as learning prompts by being embedded as single questions within each corresponding section rather than as a set of questions at the end
  18. No use of quiz(zes) and/or reflection question(s)
  19. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of the See also section
    1. Use bullet points per Tutorial 02
    2. Rename links per Tutorial 02
    3. Use internal linking style per Tutorial 02
    4. Also include links to related book chapters
    5. Also include links to related Wikipedia articles
    6. Use sentence casing
    7. Use alphabetical order
    8. Include sources in parentheses after the link
    9. Move peer-reviewed articles into the References section and cite
    10. Move external links into the External links section
    11. Add more links
  20. See also section not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count
  21. Excellent/Very good/Good/Reasonably good/Basic/Insufficient/No use of the External links section
    1. Use bullet points per Tutorial 02
    2. Rename links per Tutorial 02
    3. Use sentence casing
    4. Use alphabetical order
    5. Include sources in parentheses after the link
    6. Move Wikipedia/Wikiversity links to the See also section
    7. Move peer-reviewed articles to the References section and cite
    8. Target an international audience
    9. Add more links
    10. Link to the top 3-6 external resources about this topic
  22. External links section not counted for marking purposes due to being over the maximum word count
  1. ~ logged, useful, mostly minor/moderate/major contributions with direct links to evidence
  2. ~ logged contributions without direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess. See tutorials for guidance about how to get direct links to evidence.
  3. Thanks for the Wiki Commons uploads
  4. Thanks very much for your extensive contributions
  5. Use a numbered list per Tutorial 02
  6. No logged contributions

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

See also

[edit source]