Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Machiavellianism and power motivation

Heading casing

Hi Joan-E-1405. FYI, the recommended Wikiversity heading style uses sentence casing. For example: Self-determination theory rather than Self-Determination Theory Here's an example chapter with correct heading casing: Growth mindset development -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi @Joan-E-1405,

I've had a read of your chapter and it's coming together very nicely! I loved your integration of theory and research. I have added a couple of comments for you to consider and I hope these are helpful :) Where I have put the 'factual' comment, I thought your argument could be strengthened with a citation of a source. Perhaps to make the research section even stronger, you could add how many participants were included. Well done, and I look forward to seeing your final book chapter! U3216883 (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

General feedback

Your chapter on Machiavellianism and Power Motivation is fascinating and well-organised, especially with the practical examples and strong integration of theories. It really sheds light on how Machiavellian traits manifest in everyday settings. I’d love to see some quiz questions added to engage readers even more and reinforce key concepts! Cophiesollins (discuss • contribs) 05:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback :3

I'm a fan of this chapter! My only real critique is the text under heading "The impact of Machiavellianism in the workplace" is a little long without something breaking it up in the middle. Maybe a case study in the middle could break it up? U3249300 (discuss • contribs) 09:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Book chapter review and feedback

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 Overall, this is an excellent chapter. It successfully uses psychological theory and research to address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem. The main area for potential improvement is aspects of the quality of written expression For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits Overview Well developed Engages reader via an excellent case study or scenario in a feature box with a relevant image, although a picture of a workplace might work better to help attract reader interest Clearly explains the problem or phenomenon Clear focus questions Theory An excellent range of relevant theories are selected, described, and explained Builds reasonably well on related chapters and/or Wikipedia articles Insightful depth is provided about relevant theory(ies) Effective use of tables, figures, and/or lists to help clearly convey key theoretical information Key citations are well used Excellent use of examples to illustrate theoretical concepts Research Excellent review of relevant research Very good critical thinking about relevant research is evident 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 Some claims lack sufficient citation (e.g., see the tags) Integration Excellent integration between theory and research Conclusion Very good summary and conclusion Add practical, take-home message(s) Style Written expression Overall, the quality of written expression is very good Use 3rd person perspective (e.g., "it") rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you") perspective[1] in the main text, although 1st or 2nd person perspective can work well for case studies or feature boxes Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead: it is, most often, not needed at all, or use section linking Layout The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections Grammar The grammar for some/many sentences could be improved (e.g., see the tags) Check and correct use of possessive apostrophes (e.g., cats vs cat's vs cats')[2] Spelling Use Australian spelling (e.g., hypothesize vs. hypothesise; behavior vs. behaviour) APA style Use sentence casing for the names of disorders, therapies, theories, etc. Use serial commas[3]. Video (1 min) Figures Very well captioned Each Figure is referred to at least once within the main text Tables Add an APA style caption to each table Refer to each Table using APA style (e.g., do not use bold, talics, check and correct capitalisation) Citations use reasonably good APA style (7th ed.). To improve: 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 parentheses and "and" outside parentheses List multiple citations in alphabetical order by first author surname References use very good APA style: Check and correct use of capitalisation[4] Check and correct use of italicisation Learning features Very good use of learning features Very 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. Good use of image(s) Very good use of table(s) Very good use of feature box(es) Excellent 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 Very good use of external links in the "External links" section Social contribution ~14 logged, useful, mostly moderate social contributions with direct links to evidence Approx a third of logged social contributions did not provide direct links to evidence, so unable to easily verify and assess

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)