Talk:Autopoiesis

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 8
Comments: It's very clear

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
Comments: It looks at first a bit like a mess, it can be made more clear. The grammar is correct.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 7
Comments: I think that's hard to tell, since I don't know a lot about the subject. But is seems clear.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 10
Comments: Very well done.
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: 8
Comments: In the text it sometimes misses references or pagenumbers.

4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 9
Comments:
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 9
Comments: It can be a bit broader even.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 9
Comments: It seems neutral.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 10
Comments: Not a lot of editers

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's not a very clear lead.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 5
Comments: Like I said before, it's a bit of a mess.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 5
Comments: No categories yet.

8. Illustrated: if possible, by images, maps, schematic overviews:
Not relevant

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 9
Comments: It's might be a bit bigger even.

User: IrisVanDiest --[[User:IrisVanDiest|IrisVanDiest]] 15:24, 21 October 2012 (CEST)