User talk:Sdov48

This is the Discussion Page of User Sdov48 (discuss • contribs)

Glendrick Roost Animal Welfare Centre
Glendrick Roost This is a link to a non-profit organisation called "Glendrick Roost Animal Welfare Centre" that I volunteer for near Aberfoyle.

Mionne Morrison, the founder, is a fabulous woman who has done and still does the majority of the physical work. She's an honest soul with a big heart who wants nothing more than to help all of the abandoned and abused animals that she can. She's truly inspiring to be around and her stories make you feel that you can accomplish anything you want to do. Ranging from horses to goats to snakes - the place is small but bursting with many different earthlings!

Sdov48 (discuss • contribs)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
You seem to be the sole contributor to the section on the Future of Open Source on the chapter – this proves quite significant in the development and rounding off of your group's book chapter. It's well written, supported through citation, and although fact-based and descriptive, rather than critical and characterised by analysis, it is useful. Comes right at the end of the project period, however, indicating that had you produced work earlier, you could have increased both the volume and the quality of work produced significantly.

Wiki Exercises


 * Assignment responses receiving marks of this standard tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Posts are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students' posts, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. In your case, you did not submit anything in this regard, posts nor comments.

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:
 * 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%)

 * 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

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)