Talk:Social Capital
From Geography
LiekeVogels (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: …… (0-10) Comments: … 2. Well-written: a) well-w...") |
LiekeVogels (Talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ====Evaluating Wiki Entries: Social Capital==== | ||
| + | |||
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) | Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) | ||
| + | |||
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. | 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: Social capital is an aspect of multiple themes, so it deservers an own entry. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
2. Well-written: | 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; | 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: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: The text is wel written, easy to understand. I could find any little spelling and grammar errors. |
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. | b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: The entry is comprehensive, I think all important aspects are written in this entry. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: | 3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: | ||
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; | a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 8 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: The references in the text are sufficient, I found some little errors. |
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. | 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: | + | Rating: 8 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: The citations are good. |
| + | |||
4. Broad in its coverage: | 4. Broad in its coverage: | ||
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; | a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: The main aspects of the topic are good described, but I could not find many links to other entries. |
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. | b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: Enough details are used to describe the topic well. |
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. | 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: The text is written in a neutral way and without bias. |
| + | |||
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | 6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: This entry is stable, it is changed one time after this entry was created. |
| + | |||
7. Well-structured: | 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; | a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 8 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: The lead section describes good what the page is about, it is actually a short summarize. |
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. | b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: Teh structure is sufficient, this is because it is a small entry and enough headings are used. |
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) | c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: I don't think any category is missng. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
8. Illustrated: if possible, by images, maps, schematic overviews: | 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; | a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: n.v.t. |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: n.v.t. |
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: n.v.t. |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: n.v.t. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. | 9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 6 |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: Enough details are used to describe the topic very well. |
| + | |||
| + | ====Evaluated by==== | ||
| + | Lieke Vogels, 23 october 2012 | ||
Latest revision as of 14:32, 23 October 2012
Evaluating Wiki Entries: Social Capital
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 Comments: Social capital is an aspect of multiple themes, so it deservers an 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: 7
Comments: The text is wel written, easy to understand. I could find any little spelling and grammar errors.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 7
Comments: The entry is comprehensive, I think all important aspects are written in this entry.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 8
Comments: The references in the text are sufficient, I found some little errors.
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
Comments: The citations are good.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 Comments: The main aspects of the topic are good described, but I could not find many links to other entries. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 Comments: Enough details are used to describe the topic well. 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7 Comments: The text is written in a neutral way and without bias.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 Comments: This entry is stable, it is changed one time after this entry was created.
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: 8 Comments: The lead section describes good what the page is about, it is actually a short summarize. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 Comments: Teh structure is sufficient, this is because it is a small entry and enough headings are used. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 7 Comments: I don't think any category is missng.
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: 6
Comments: Enough details are used to describe the topic very well.
Evaluated by
Lieke Vogels, 23 october 2012
