Talk:Character

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 7
Comments: Character is used by Durheim, a key thinker 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
Comments: The page is written in well english.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 8
Comments: Although character can have a broad meaning, in this page the character is part of what Durkheim understands as character. That is the major fact. 

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: 
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 8
Comments: The APA guidlines are youst in correct order.
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
Comments: Only page numbers are missing. 

4. Broad in its coverage: 
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 7
Comments: It is not broad in its coverage, but straight to the point. Because this page is only about ‘character’, it doesn’t need a broader coverage though. 
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 8
Comments: Stays focused on the topic, as mentioned in 4a.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8
Comments: It represents only one viewpoint. That viewpoint is of Durkheim.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 10
Comments: Very stable, one contributor, one change.

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: 5
Comments: there is no section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the details in the section. But due to the fact it is a small page, maybe the summary isn’t necessary.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 6
Comments: first section is about what the character is, the second is an example of durheims character in crime. This is just being sufficient.  
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: n/a
Comments: no category

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: 6
Comments: short lenght, thouch just sufficient.

====Evaluated by Michiel van Rijn--[[User:MichielVanRijn|MichielVanRijn]] 16:06, 26 October 2012 (CEST)====