Talk:Social Capital

From Geography

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(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...")
 
(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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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: …… (0-10)
+
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

Personal tools