Talk:Renaissance

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 7 (0-10)
Comments: Renaissance humanism and scientific humanism, which are treated in this course, came into being during the Renaissance era.

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: 6 (0-10)
Comments: The spelling is correct. Some sentences are written in a professional way, whereas other sentences are not written professionally at all. The unprofessional sentences contain many grammatical errors.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 6(0-10)
Comments: It is a very broad description of the Renaissance era. The Renaissance era is correctly portrayed in this wiki, although a paragraph about the flourishing of arts and crafts could have been added.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: 
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 5(0-10)
Comments: There are two references in the literaturelist, of which only one follows APA guidelines. There are no references in the text.

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: 0 (0-10)
Comments: The text does not have any references.

4. Broad in its coverage: 
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 6(0-10)
Comments: Although important aspects of the Renaissance are adressed, some are missing. A part about the flourishing of arts and crafts could have been added. 

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 9(0-10)
Comments: There is no unnecessary detail in this wiki.

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: 6 (0-10)
Comments: Some sentences are written very professionally, whereas others are not professional at all. This probably is the result of two different writing styles, two different levels of English and a difference in time spent on the wiki.

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: 7 (0-10)
Comments: There is a lead section that introduces the Renaissance.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming 
table of contents.
Rating: 5 (0-10)
Comments: There is only one header.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 5 (0-10)
Comments: There is little categorisation in this wiki.

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: …… (0-10)
Comments: …
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: …… (0-10)
Comments: …
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: …… (0-10)
Comments: …