Talk:Edward Said

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

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 10
Comments: The page of Edward Said is very relevant in this course. A whole lecture in this course is even deducated to him.

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: 9
Comments: The page is very well written and of a professional standard. 
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 9
Comments: Only an geographical example is missing, but this can be fixed anyway and the text provides even some examples of why Saids work is relevant to the field of geography.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: 
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 9
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: Only some inline citations are missing.

4. Broad in its coverage: 
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8
Comments: Only the critique of is a short length. This could be more detailed. 
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 10
Comments: It provides good en quality information on the topic.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8
Comments: The viewpoint is adressed on Said’s work. There is little attention to the critique on his work.But the main theme, his work and postcolonialism gets a good representation.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 10
Comments: No changes in 2012, until now.

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: 10
Comments: Well done.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 9
Comments: Good structure. May look like a large table, but it provides a good representation of his work.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 9
Comments: Categorized in Key Thinkers. Maybe their could be more categories added.

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: 10
Comments: Nice picture of his work and also a picture of himself. Audience gets a good overview in puctures about who and what.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 10
Comments: Indeed relevant. Now you have an image about what the men looked like en what the cover of it’s work is. So when you are visiting the library, you instantly know by just seeing the cover of a book, wheter or not it is the orientalism of Said.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 8
Comments: Look like a long page, but due to the overview at the top, the reader of this page can quickly scan what’s written on the page and then make a decission if this page provides the information the reader is looking for. 

====Evaluated by Michiel van Rijn--[[User:MichielVanRijn|MichielVanRijn]] 13:06, 26 October 2012 (CEST)====