Talk:Intention

From Geography

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You can view and copy the source of this page:

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: part of humanistic geography base 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 (0-10) Comments: structure is ok, overall text, needs improving to make it a easier reading. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: 3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: References are included but need minor updates to follow APA lines. Lectures of Werlen need to be added 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 (0-10) Comments: … 4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: … b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: weber’s theory of man, needs to clarified with regard to intention or removed 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: … 6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 (0-10) 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 (0-10) Comments: to short for summary b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: … c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 4 (0-10) Comments: needs to be 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: 6 (0-10) Comments: no images b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: na (0-10) Comments: … 9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: theory of man, as above =====Evaluated by==== Dennis Prince--[[User:DennisPrince|DennisPrince]] 15:32, 1 October 2012 (CEST)

Return to Talk:Intention.