Talk:Society

'''Evaluating Wiki Entries''' 
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 9
Comments: In this course society is one of the main topics. 

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
Comments: …

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 8
Comments: The topic 'society' is a very broad subject. There are many ways in which to describe. In my opinion the information about the subject is sufficient for this course.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: 

a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 7
Comments: As far as I can see the information is well referenced
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: In the first and last parts several in-line citations including page numbers. In the middle is room for more citations.

4. Broad in its coverage: 
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8
Comments: The subject is being discussed through the eyes of several philosophers and geographers.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 7
Comments: It stays focused on the subject.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 7
Comments: …

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 7
Comments: It is somewhat stable, most of the editing is more contribution to the subject.

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: 3
Comments: There is no clear structure. 

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming 
table of contents.
Rating: 0
Comments: The contributors have not used headings. 

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 0
Comments: there are no entries specified, these can of course be improved.

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
Comments: …No pictures included.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 0
Comments: See above.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 8
Comments: clear and focused on the subject

'''Evaluated by '''

Doris Roelvink, October 24th 2012