Talk:Truth

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 7
Comments: Not so much for the man Searle, but his ideas are relevant.


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: A little short, but well written.


b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 8
Comments: Everything is ok.


3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: 

a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 10
Comments: APA as it should be.


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: 10
Comments: APA as it should be.

4. Broad in its coverage: 

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 5
Comments: There is not written very much. However, it is difficult to write much about this subject.


b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 9
Comments: A small text and a good explanation of the phenomenon.


5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating:10
Comments: Completely neutral point of view.


6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 10
Comments: This article has only one writer.


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 lead section, but it is not really needed because of the small amount of text.


b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming 
table of contents.
Rating: 9
Comments: Very clear to me, because of the use of the headings.


c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 10
Comments: I think all the entry's are there.


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 illustrations available.


b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 0
Comments: No illustrations available.


9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 6
Comments: A very small text, but a good explanation of the phenomenon.