Talk:Ontology
From Geography
TeunVanDeVen (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: 7 (0-10) Comments: Just as the wiki states, ontology i...") |
TeunVanDeVen (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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: 7 (0-10) | Rating: 7 (0-10) | ||
Comments: Just as the wiki states, ontology is a framework for science to exist in. Also this course needs such a framework and therefore ontology is an entry this wiki "can not exist without". On the other hand, it is not a 100% geographical concept and thats why it has a 7 for relevance. | Comments: Just as the wiki states, ontology is a framework for science to exist in. Also this course needs such a framework and therefore ontology is an entry this wiki "can not exist without". On the other hand, it is not a 100% geographical concept and thats why it has a 7 for relevance. | ||
| + | |||
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 | 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; | concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; | ||
Rating: 8 (0-10) | Rating: 8 (0-10) | ||
Comments: The wiki consists of short, clear and grammatically correct sentences. That makes it easy to read and fairly easy to understand such a difficult concept. | Comments: The wiki consists of short, clear and grammatically correct sentences. That makes it easy to read and fairly easy to understand such a difficult concept. | ||
| + | |||
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: 6 (0-10) | Rating: 6 (0-10) | ||
Comments: For a huge concept as ontology, the entry is rather short. It could use some expansion. | Comments: For a huge concept as ontology, the entry is rather short. It could use some expansion. | ||
| + | |||
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: 8 (0-10) | Rating: 8 (0-10) | ||
Comments: Multiple scientific sources are used to lay out this concept. That makes it verifiable and accurate. | Comments: Multiple scientific sources are used to lay out this concept. That makes it verifiable and accurate. | ||
| + | |||
b) it provides in-line citations (including page numbers) from reliable sources for direct quotations, | 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 | statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to | ||
| Line 21: | Line 28: | ||
Rating: 5 (0-10) | Rating: 5 (0-10) | ||
Comments: As mentioned before, the entry could use a lot of expansion. Most things mentioned in the question are not present. It is a good idea for future students to cover it. | Comments: As mentioned before, the entry could use a lot of expansion. Most things mentioned in the question are not present. It is a good idea for future students to cover it. | ||
| + | |||
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: 8 (0-10) | Rating: 8 (0-10) | ||
Comments: Although short, the entry covers the very core of "ontology" and that is exactly what a encyclopedia should do. | Comments: Although short, the entry covers the very core of "ontology" and that is exactly what a encyclopedia should do. | ||
| + | |||
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: 8 (0-10) | Rating: 8 (0-10) | ||
Comments: It is really focussed and to the point. No "wanderings" are used. | Comments: It is really focussed and to the point. No "wanderings" are used. | ||
| + | |||
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: 8 (0-10) | Rating: 8 (0-10) | ||
Comments: The wiki is written in a very neutral and to-the-point way, no personal or emotional aspects are involved. | Comments: The wiki is written in a very neutral and to-the-point way, no personal or emotional aspects are involved. | ||
| + | |||
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: 7 (0-10) | Rating: 7 (0-10) | ||
Comments: It has only been changed (edited) a couple of times and it looks like the editing has only been good for the entry. It is still clear and there are no contradictions of any kind. | Comments: It has only been changed (edited) a couple of times and it looks like the editing has only been good for the entry. It is still clear and there are no contradictions of any kind. | ||
| + | |||
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 | a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the | ||
subsequent sections; | subsequent sections; | ||
Rating: 6 (0-10) | Rating: 6 (0-10) | ||
Comments: The structure could be improved, it starts with a short explanation of the concept, but then the "story" goes on. A little more structure could really improve this entry. | Comments: The structure could be improved, it starts with a short explanation of the concept, but then the "story" goes on. A little more structure could really improve this entry. | ||
| + | |||
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming | b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming | ||
table of contents. | table of contents. | ||
Rating: 8 (0-10) | Rating: 8 (0-10) | ||
Comments: The structure with sections is done very well. This makes it easy to understand. | Comments: The structure with sections is done very well. This makes it easy to understand. | ||
| + | |||
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: 8 (0-10) | Rating: 8 (0-10) | ||
Comments: The categories that are used are used correctly, but a few categories could be added: maybe "ontology in literature", "ontology in geography" | Comments: The categories that are used are used correctly, but a few categories could be added: maybe "ontology in literature", "ontology in geography" | ||
| + | |||
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 | a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free | ||
content; | content; | ||
Rating: - (0-10) | Rating: - (0-10) | ||
Comments: Pictures are nog really helpful with this concept, text can explain it and pictures would not be helpful. | Comments: Pictures are nog really helpful with this concept, text can explain it and pictures would not be helpful. | ||
| + | |||
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
Rating: (0-10) | Rating: (0-10) | ||
Comments: - | Comments: - | ||
| + | |||
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: 7 (0-10) | Rating: 7 (0-10) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:05, 26 October 2012
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Just as the wiki states, ontology is a framework for science to exist in. Also this course needs such a framework and therefore ontology is an entry this wiki "can not exist without". On the other hand, it is not a 100% geographical concept and thats why it has a 7 for relevance.
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 (0-10) Comments: The wiki consists of short, clear and grammatically correct sentences. That makes it easy to read and fairly easy to understand such a difficult concept.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: For a huge concept as ontology, the entry is rather short. It could use some expansion.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Multiple scientific sources are used to lay out this concept. That makes it verifiable and accurate.
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 (0-10) Comments: As mentioned before, the entry could use a lot of expansion. Most things mentioned in the question are not present. It is a good idea for future students to cover it.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Although short, the entry covers the very core of "ontology" and that is exactly what a encyclopedia should do.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is really focussed and to the point. No "wanderings" are used.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is written in a very neutral and to-the-point way, no personal or emotional aspects are involved.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It has only been changed (edited) a couple of times and it looks like the editing has only been good for the entry. It is still clear and there are no contradictions of any kind.
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 (0-10) Comments: The structure could be improved, it starts with a short explanation of the concept, but then the "story" goes on. A little more structure could really improve this entry.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The structure with sections is done very well. This makes it easy to understand.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The categories that are used are used correctly, but a few categories could be added: maybe "ontology in literature", "ontology in geography"
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: - (0-10) Comments: Pictures are nog really helpful with this concept, text can explain it and pictures would not be helpful.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: (0-10) Comments: -
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: As mentioned, the text is very to the point. Details are left out and the wiki really is a summary of the concept of ontology.
Evaluated by TeunVanDeVen 14:04, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
