Talk:Because motive

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 9 (0-10)
Comments: The because motive is part of the material studied in this course.

2. Well-written:
a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: Spelling and grammar are correct. The text is easily readable, which is a positive aspect of this wiki.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: No major facts are neglected. The because motive is described in a clear and complete way.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 8(0-10)
Comments: References in the text and in the list of literature is present.

b) it provides in-line citations (including page numbers) from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the APA guidelines.
Rating: 7(0-10)
Comments: There are no direct citations, but there are examples of the because motive.

4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8(0-10)
Comments: All aspects of the because motive are covered.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 7(0-10)
Comments: It stays focussed on the topic, although the text could have been more concise.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: Viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 7 (0-10)
Comments: Two people have worked on this wiki. Still, it seems to be stable and forms a coherent whole.

7. Well-structured:
a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
Rating: 1 (0-10)
Comments: There is no concise lead section.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 6 (0-10)
Comments: First, a brief explanation of the in-order-to motive is given, after which the because-motive is described. This wiki needs more hierarchy, since it needs an introductory section.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 6(0-10)
Comments: It needs an introductory section.

8. Illustrated: if possible, by images, maps, schematic overviews:
a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Rating: 0(0-10)
Comments: There are no images.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 0(0-10)
Comments: There are no images.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 7(0-10)
Comments: The wiki stays focussed on the topic, although it could have been more concise.

Reviewed by Bert Hegger.