Talk:Field

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 7
Comments: Wel known persons in this course describe the ‘field’. 

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
Comments: It is a well written page. The spelling and grammar are also correct. 
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 10
Comments: …

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: 
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 9
Comments: In the text the reference Gregory et al could be used in stead to refering every person. 
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: 9
Comments: Only in one reference a page number is missing.

4. Broad in its coverage: 
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8
Comments: This page gives you indeed a better insight in the topic.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 8
Comments: There are no unneccessary detail but there could have been more detail to explain it even better.

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

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 8
Comments: seems like the page is only edited twice, by two different persons.

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: 6
Comments: there is no overview. So the reader has to read the entire text to find himself an answer on his question. If there was an overview, the reader has a better sight on what is in this page
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming 
table of contents.
Rating: 1
Comments: is missing
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 10
Comments: Even three categories are counted in.

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: n/a
Comments: no images
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: n/a
Comments: no images

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 7
Comments: Stays indeed focused on the main topic. Beter it is better to give an overview of the page and use some kind of figure to give a better overview of what the field is.

====Evaluated by--[[User:MichielVanRijn|MichielVanRijn]] 11:34, 26 October 2012 (CEST)====