Talk:Modernity

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

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 7
Comments: This entry is relevant for this course. Modernity is an important subject of and time in the history. Modernity is also important to udnerstand action theoretic approaches because of the important role of rationality in modernity.


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: This entry is well-written. I hardly could find spelling and grammar errors. The text is easy to understand.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: This entry is comprehensive, it is clear. The term modernity is described in two ways. Maybe in the future modernity can be described in a third way.
Comments: 7


3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 5
Comments: Two of the three resources are from wikipedia, which means they are not scientific. The reference to the source of Giddens is good.
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: 6
Comments: There are not many citations and references in the text. This is because it is a small entry and a few sources have been used.


4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 7
Comments: The most important aspects of modernity are written in the text.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 8
Comments: The details that are given are good, it keeps the text simple

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 7
Comments: This entry si written in a neutral way, without bias.


6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 8
Comments: Since the author created this entry, it is not changed yet.

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 is no main lead in this entry. But because modernity is described in two ways I don;t think it is really necessary to add a main lead.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 7
Comments: Because it is a small entry and modernity is described in two ways, this entry doesn't need a very big structure.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 6
Comments: MAybe the next time, authors can add a category about important writers about modernity.

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.v.t.
Comments: n.v.t.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: n.v.t.
Comments: n.v.t.


9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 7
Comments: This entry is short but powerful


====Evaluated by====
Lieke Vogels, 23 october 2012