Talk:Dasein

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: It’s a important term within this course so the description of this term is very usefull.

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 (0-10)
Comments: It is well written, and without spelling or grammar fouls. It is also written with some creativity

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 6 (0-10)
Comments: I miss some explanations about some claimes.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: 
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 9 (0-10)
Comments: The sources are good and of high quality, and the APA guidelines has been followed.

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: 5 (0-10)
Comments: There aren’t in line citations. 

4. Broad in its coverage: 

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 9 (0-10)
Comments: The writher  focused on the right aspects.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 9 (0-10)
Comments: There is totally no detail, this could be maybe some more.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: There is no personal affection of the writer in the text. 

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 4 (0-10)
Comments: For this small text there are too much editors.

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: 8 (0-10)
Comments: there is only a summarizing.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming 
table of contents.
Rating: 3 (0-10)
Comments: There are no section headings.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 5 (0-10)
Comments: There are no categories.

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: There are nu illustrations

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: 4 (0-10)
Comments: The text is to short.

== Contributance ==

Evaluated by Pieter van Luijk 24 October 2012