Talk:Humanism

Evaluating Wiki Entries
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 8 
Comments: …
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: 7 
Comments: …
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 6 
Comments: Some things could be more explained and explained with less words.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 8 
Comments: …
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: The citations are very well published.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8 
Comments: …
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 7 
Comments: Sometimes its focus on humanism is taken away by unneccessary going in detail of side issues. 
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8 
Comments: …
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 8 
Comments: …
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: Is missing.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 6
Comments: This strcuture is in my opinion lacking. With this term different headings could have been made. 
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 6
Comments: The category 'definition' would be suitable and a categroy with the sort of background information would fit properly. 
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: 1
Comments: None available
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 1
Comments: None available
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 7 
Comments: Its shows in a decent way the main topic, but I think some details weren't directly necessary while others were missing. 

====Evaluated by====
Paul van den Hogen--[[User:PaulHogen|PaulHogen]] 13:48, 26 October 2012 (CEST)