User:FMSU9A4marker/sandbox

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
This is a very good piece of work that tackles a lot of relevant issues.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Second test

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page fails to give an overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is little familiarity in evidence with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues is tenuous and limited at best. You did not find any appreciable primary and secondary sources about the chapter’s themes.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * no evidence of argument;
 * no evidence of critical thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of relational thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Third test

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * no evidence of argument;
 * no evidence of critical thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of relational thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exceptional standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Considerable levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Highly original reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
4th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * appreciably deficient evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * lack of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (you tended to not taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (you tended to not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
5th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
6th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an exceptional overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an outstanding range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. Your work demonstrates an exceptional degree of originality. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an extremely wide range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * no evidence of argument;
 * no evidence of critical thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of relational thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
7th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument, or no argument at all;
 * no evidence of critical thinking (you did not take a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * no evidence of relational thinking (you did not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exceptional standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Considerable levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Highly original reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
8th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
9th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page fails to give an overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is little familiarity in evidence with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues is tenuous and limited at best. You did not find any appreciable primary and secondary sources about the chapter’s themes.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
10th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an excellent brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an excellent range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exceptional standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Considerable levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Highly original reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
This is a very good piece of work that tackles a lot of relevant issues.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * no evidence of argument;
 * no evidence of critical thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of relational thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Second test

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page fails to give an overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is little familiarity in evidence with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues is tenuous and limited at best. You did not find any appreciable primary and secondary sources about the chapter’s themes.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a considerable range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to an extremely wide degree
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through highly original judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * outstanding evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * outstanding originality in evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * considerable evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Third test

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an outstanding brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is an excellent range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover an extremely wide range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, clearly grounded on close familiarity with concepts and ideas encountered on the module
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material through evidence of close familiarity with a wide range of evidence
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring appreciable depth of understanding
 * good level of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * good level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of appreciable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exceptional standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Considerable levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Highly original reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
4th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives an acceptable brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a qualified familiarity with concepts associated with your subject, and although there is an effort to deliver critical definitions, the grasp of conceptual and analytical issues although reasonable, tends to be a little limited and insecure. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a limited depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a minimally sufficient range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * appreciably deficient evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * lack of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (you tended to not taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (you tended to not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests minimally sufficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Acceptable engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Limited reflexivity and creativity, and a somewhat insecure management of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
5th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page fails to give an overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is little familiarity in evidence with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues is tenuous and limited at best. You did not find any appreciable primary and secondary sources about the chapter’s themes.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, although some ideas and procedures more securely grasped than others
 * evidence of independent reading of somewhat circumscribed range of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument featuring variable depth of understanding
 * satisfactory level of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * satisfactory level of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of variable independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
6th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * no evidence of argument;
 * no evidence of critical thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of relational thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content to an appreciable standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Good engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
7th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a satisfactory brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a fair range of concepts associated with your subject, and an effort to deliver critical definitions. There is evidence that you draw from relevant literature and scholarship, however your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is slightly lost, perhaps due to a variable depth of understanding the subject matter or over reliance on rote learning. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a somewhat circumscribed range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * appreciably deficient evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * lack of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (you tended to not taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (you tended to not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exceptional standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Considerable levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Highly original reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
8th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page fails to give an overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is little familiarity in evidence with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues is tenuous and limited at best. You did not find any appreciable primary and secondary sources about the chapter’s themes.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * no evidence of argument;
 * no evidence of critical thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of relational thinking or discussion
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * No evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * No engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Little or no use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
9th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of critical engagement with set materials, featuring discriminating command of a comprehensive  range of relevant materials and analyses
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material to an exemplary level
 * Argument and analysis:
 * well-articulated and well-supported argument through considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts or procedures
 * exemplary evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position);
 * comprehensive evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections);
 * considerable evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * discernible lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
10th

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page fails to give an overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is little familiarity in evidence with concepts associated with your subject, and the grasp of conceptual, factual and analytical issues is tenuous and limited at best. You did not find any appreciable primary and secondary sources about the chapter’s themes.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * evidence of limited critical engagement with set material, although most ideas and procedures insecurely grasped
 * evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material limited, displaying a qualified familiarity with a minimally sufficient range of relevant materials
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poorly articulated and supported argument;
 * lack of evidence of critical thinking (through taking a position in relation to key ideas from the module, and supporting this position in discussion);
 * lack of evidence of relational thinking (through making connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, and supporting these connections in discussion);
 * evidence of independent critical ability limited, due to the fact that your grasp of the analytical issues and concepts, although generally reasonable, is somewhat insecure.

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content of an exceptional standard (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * Considerable levels of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Highly original reflexive, creative and well-managed use of discussion pages using deployment of considered judgement relating to key issues, concepts and procedures

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

Late penalty % if applicable

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC) on behalf of sprowberry