Talk:Social Capital

From Geography

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