Jump to content

Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Political motivation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikiversity
Content deleted Content added
Topic development feedback
mNo edit summary
 
Line 99: Line 99:
<!-- Social contribution -->
<!-- Social contribution -->
# Excellent – at least three different types of contributions with direct link(s) to evidence
# Excellent – at least three different types of contributions with direct link(s) to evidence
}}
-- [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] - <small>[[User talk:Jtneill|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Jtneill|c]]</small> 02:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
-- [[User:Jtneill|Jtneill]] - <small>[[User talk:Jtneill|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Jtneill|c]]</small> 02:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:36, 17 August 2024

Initial suggestions

[edit source]

@IvaPuskarica: Thanks for tackling this topic. Some initial suggestions:

Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Topic development feedback

[edit source]

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.

  1. The title is correctly worded and formatted
  1. Basic, 3-level heading structure – could benefit from further development and refinement, perhaps using a 2-level structure
  2. Suggest using topic-related headings directly related to the focus questions rather than headings based on individual authors
  3. Remove citations from headings
  4. Embed/integrate case studies in the most relevant sections rather than having them in a separate section
  5. Rather than generic headings like "Research and theory" use more topic-specific, semantic headings
  6. Good alignment between focus questions and heading structure
  7. Consider adopting closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings
  8. Adopt closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings
  1. Very good - Scenario, image, evocative description of the problem/topic, relevant psychological theory/research, and focus questions
  2. A scenario or case study is presented in a feature box at the start of this section
  3. A brief, evocative description of the problem/topic is provided
  4. Currently the focus questions set up topics which go beyond the chapter sub-title. Whilst these might be interesting, they are: (a) not required; (b) risk being tangents and undermining tackling the core question i the sub-title using the best psychological theory and research
  5. Closer alignment between the sub-title, focus questions, and top-level headings is recommended
  1. Partial development of key points for some sections, with some relevant citations
  2. For sections which include sub-sections, include the key points for an overview paragraph prior to branching into the sub-headings
  3. There seems to be reasonably good coverage of theory, however, strive to balance the content with critical review of relevant research
  4. Strive for an integrated balance of theory and research, with practical examples
  5. Move references into the References section. Keep citations in the main body.
  6. Is this genAI content? If so, it needs to be acknowledged as such in the edit summaries otherwise it violates academic integrity.
  7. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. Hasn't been developed
    2. What might the take-home, practical messages be? (What are the answer(s) to the question(s) in the sub-title and/or focus questions?)
  1. Excellent - A relevant figure is presented, captioned, and cited
  2. Consider increasing image size from to make it easier to view
  1. Promising use of in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters
  2. Promising use of example(s)/case study(ies)
  3. Promising use of quiz question(s)
  4. Focus the quiz question(s) on the take-home messages for each focus question rather than obscure/trivial information
  5. Also consider using one or more tables to summarise key information
  1. Good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation
    2. italicisation
    3. page numbers should be separated by an en-dash (–) rather than a hyphen (-)
    4. proofreading/copyediting needed
  1. See also
    1. Very good
    2. Use sentence casing
  2. External links
    1. Very good
    2. Choose the most relevant internet sources about this topic
  3. proofreading/copyediting needed
  1. Excellent – used effectively
  2. Remember to log in when editing
  3. Remember to provide edit summaries
  4. Brief description about self provided – consider expanding
  5. 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.
  6. Link provided to book chapter
  1. Excellent – at least three different types of contributions with direct link(s) to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply