Talk:Everyday regionalisation

From Geography

Latest revision as of 13:47, 23 October 2012

Evaluating Wiki Entries: Everyday regionalisation

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 subject is relevant for this course. It is necessary that it has its own entry.

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: 5 Comments: Teh text is not good written. there ary many spelling and grammar errors, the text is vague and incomprehensible b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating:5 Comments: There are many things written in the text, it is very incomprehensible and cluttered.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 5 Comments: The references are incomplete according the APA guidelines, and I don't understand the references to 'ibid'. 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: 5 Comments: The direct in-line citations are not citated in a correct way.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 6 Comments:This entry is incormpehensible, the main aspects are almost not visible in this entry. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 6 Comments: There are given many details, actually it is hard for readers to understand this entry in a good and clear way

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 6 Comments: The text is written in a neutral way.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 6 Comments: This entry is changed a few times so it is not constantly changing.

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: 5 Comments: There isn't a lead section in this entry. Reader don't know what to expect in this entry. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 Comments: there are nog headings and levels. this entry is incomprehensible so this entry is difficult to understand. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5 Comments: This entry is badly categorized. I do not think that some categories are missing but they are difficult to find in this entry.

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: 5 Comments: Many aspects in this entry are shuffled, so it seems that there are given too much details. The authors did not made use of summary styles.

Evaluated by

Lieke Vogels, 23 october 2012