Talk:Hermeneutics
From Geography
AnneStrien (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: 9 (0-10) Comments: This is a relevant topic in the fir...") |
AnneStrien (Talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| 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. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: This is a relevant topic in the first part of the course. | 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: This is a relevant topic in the first part of the course. | ||
| - | 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 (0-10) Comments: Well written, | + | |
| - | b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: | + | 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 (0-10) Comments: Well written, it's prose is sufficient and engaging. |
| - | 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: 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: 7 (0-10) Comments: | + | |
| - | 4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: | + | b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: The subject it handled well and placed in context. |
| + | |||
| + | 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: The wiki contains all the references following 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: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki contains no citations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: All the main aspects are covered. | ||
| + | |||
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9(0-10) Comments: Just enough is said about it, without going too much in detail. | b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9(0-10) Comments: Just enough is said about it, without going too much in detail. | ||
| + | |||
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: The text is very neutral. | 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: The text is very neutral. | ||
| + | |||
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: The text is reviewed by different editors but it stays unclear who edited what and how it is enhanced. | 6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: The text is reviewed by different editors but it stays unclear who edited what and how it is enhanced. | ||
| - | 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: | + | |
| - | b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: | + | 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 (0-10) Comments: The main content is clear, and well structured. |
| - | c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: | + | |
| - | 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: | + | b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: A heading and a clear table of context was added. |
| - | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 3(0-10) Comments: | + | |
| + | c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Clear catagories are added. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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: 7 (0-10) Comments: Although a picture is added, the content remains unclear. | ||
| + | |||
| + | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 3(0-10) Comments: It remains unclear what relevance the picture has regarding the topic. | ||
| + | |||
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Clear overview, length is good. | 9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Clear overview, length is good. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Evaluated by --[[User:AnneStrien|AnneStrien]] 10:31, 24 October 2012 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:19, 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: 9 (0-10) Comments: This is a relevant topic in the first part of the course.
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 (0-10) Comments: Well written, it's prose is sufficient and engaging.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: The subject it handled well and placed in context.
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: The wiki contains all the references following 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: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki contains no citations.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: All the main aspects are covered.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9(0-10) Comments: Just enough is said about it, without going too much in detail.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: The text is very neutral.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: The text is reviewed by different editors but it stays unclear who edited what and how it is enhanced.
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 (0-10) Comments: The main content is clear, and well structured.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: A heading and a clear table of context was added.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Clear catagories are added.
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: 7 (0-10) Comments: Although a picture is added, the content remains unclear.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 3(0-10) Comments: It remains unclear what relevance the picture has regarding the topic.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Clear overview, length is good.
Evaluated by --AnneStrien 10:31, 24 October 2012 (CEST)
