Talk:Stream of consciousness
From Geography
StefTomesen (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "1. Relevance: 8/10: The subject is an important part of the phenomenology 2. Well-written: 8/10: The writer has a professional style. The text has a good structure; it starts wit...") |
StefTomesen (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
1. Relevance: 8/10: The subject is an important part of the phenomenology | 1. Relevance: 8/10: The subject is an important part of the phenomenology | ||
| - | 2. Well-written: 8/10: The writer has a professional style. The text has a good structure; it starts with a general description of the term, after that, researchers are mentioned and the writer becomes more specific. | + | |
| + | 2. Well-written: 8/10: The writer has a professional style. The text has a good structure; it starts with a general description of the term, | ||
| + | after that, researchers are mentioned and the writer becomes more specific. | ||
| + | |||
3. Well-researched: 8/10: It's well researched. The right researchers are linked to the term. | 3. Well-researched: 8/10: It's well researched. The right researchers are linked to the term. | ||
| + | |||
4. Broad in its coverage: 7/10: Maybe the link to Alfred Schütz could described a bit more comprehensive | 4. Broad in its coverage: 7/10: Maybe the link to Alfred Schütz could described a bit more comprehensive | ||
| + | |||
5. Neutral: 9/10: | 5. Neutral: 9/10: | ||
| + | |||
6. Stable: 9/10: | 6. Stable: 9/10: | ||
| + | |||
7. Well-structured: 8/10: Great structure, see 2. | 7. Well-structured: 8/10: Great structure, see 2. | ||
| + | |||
8. Illustrated: -/10: There are no illustrations. I do not think that there are pictures and illustrations needed. | 8. Illustrated: -/10: There are no illustrations. I do not think that there are pictures and illustrations needed. | ||
| + | |||
9. Length: 7/10: Every sentence is relevant for the whole story, in that way it does not become lengthy. | 9. Length: 7/10: Every sentence is relevant for the whole story, in that way it does not become lengthy. | ||
Evaluated by [[User:StefTomesen|StefTomesen]] 16:55, 26 October 2012 (CEST) | Evaluated by [[User:StefTomesen|StefTomesen]] 16:55, 26 October 2012 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:56, 26 October 2012
1. Relevance: 8/10: The subject is an important part of the phenomenology
2. Well-written: 8/10: The writer has a professional style. The text has a good structure; it starts with a general description of the term, after that, researchers are mentioned and the writer becomes more specific.
3. Well-researched: 8/10: It's well researched. The right researchers are linked to the term.
4. Broad in its coverage: 7/10: Maybe the link to Alfred Schütz could described a bit more comprehensive
5. Neutral: 9/10:
6. Stable: 9/10:
7. Well-structured: 8/10: Great structure, see 2.
8. Illustrated: -/10: There are no illustrations. I do not think that there are pictures and illustrations needed.
9. Length: 7/10: Every sentence is relevant for the whole story, in that way it does not become lengthy.
Evaluated by StefTomesen 16:55, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
