Talk:Anne Buttimer
From Geography
(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: 6 Comments: It isn’t the one of the most important...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Comments: There is no reference to the reference. There is mention where the information was found but not with information is found where. | Comments: There is no reference to the reference. There is mention where the information was found but not with information is found where. | ||
| + | |||
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 30: | Line 31: | ||
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: It is really a piece of wiki about Anne Buttimer. | Comments: It is really a piece of wiki about Anne Buttimer. | ||
| + | |||
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: 9 (0-10) | Rating: 9 (0-10) | ||
| - | Comments: There is almost no unnecessary detail. | + | Comments: There is almost no unnecessary detail. |
| + | |||
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) | ||
| Line 43: | Line 47: | ||
Comments: there where two editors. | Comments: there where two editors. | ||
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: There is no introduction. | Comments: There is no introduction. | ||
| + | |||
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: 7 (0-10) | Rating: 7 (0-10) | ||
Comments: There is hierarchical but i don’t think this was necessary in this wiki. | Comments: There is hierarchical but i don’t think this was necessary in this wiki. | ||
| + | |||
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: There are no categorized missing, except the contributions of Anne Buttimer. | Comments: There are no categorized missing, except the contributions of Anne Buttimer. | ||
| + | |||
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: 2 | Rating: 2 | ||
Comments: I mis a photo of Anne Buttimer | Comments: I mis a photo of Anne Buttimer | ||
| + | |||
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) | ||
Comments: It is focused but maybe a bit much. So are there a lot of short conlusions. | Comments: It is focused but maybe a bit much. So are there a lot of short conlusions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Evaluated == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Evaluated by Pieter van Luijk 24 October 2012 | ||
Latest revision as of 09:43, 24 October 2012
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 6 Comments: It isn’t the one of the most important wiki pages but it has some kind of good to known background knowledge. It is especially useful when someone want to know some context.
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: It is well written but without any kind of creativity. So it is good English but it isn’t nice to read.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: The pieces about the contributions of Anne Buttimer is a bit frugal. Also the description of her life could be more specified.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 4 (0-10)
Comments: There is no reference to the reference. There is mention where the information was found but not with information is found where.
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: 6 (0-10) Comments: no page numbers, because the sources aren’t from papers or books but from internet sites.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is really a piece of wiki about Anne Buttimer.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: There is almost no unnecessary detail.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The writer of these wiki was really neutral but this isn’t hard when you make a biografie of someone. 6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: there where two editors. 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: There is no introduction.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: There is hierarchical but i don’t think this was necessary in this wiki.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: There are no categorized missing, except the contributions of Anne Buttimer.
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: 2 Comments: I mis a photo of Anne Buttimer
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: It is focused but maybe a bit much. So are there a lot of short conlusions.
Evaluated
Evaluated by Pieter van Luijk 24 October 2012
