Talk:Field
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: 7 Comments: Wel known persons in this course describe ...") |
(→Evaluated by--MichielVanRijn 11:34, 26 October 2012 (CEST)) |
||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
Comments: Stays indeed focused on the main topic. Beter it is better to give an overview of the page and use some kind of figure to give a better overview of what the field is. | Comments: Stays indeed focused on the main topic. Beter it is better to give an overview of the page and use some kind of figure to give a better overview of what the field is. | ||
| - | ====Evaluated by--[[User:MichielVanRijn|MichielVanRijn]] 11: | + | Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) |
| + | 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. | ||
| + | Rating: 7 | ||
| + | Comments: Wel known persons in this course describe the ‘field’. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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: 8 | ||
| + | Comments: It is a well written page. The spelling and grammar are also correct. | ||
| + | b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. | ||
| + | Rating: 10 | ||
| + | Comments: … | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: | ||
| + | a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; | ||
| + | Rating: 9 | ||
| + | Comments: In the text the reference Gregory et al could be used in stead to refering every person. | ||
| + | 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: 9 | ||
| + | Comments: Only in one reference a page number is missing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. Broad in its coverage: | ||
| + | a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; | ||
| + | Rating: 8 | ||
| + | Comments: This page gives you indeed a better insight in the topic. | ||
| + | b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. | ||
| + | Rating: 8 | ||
| + | Comments: There are no unneccessary detail but there could have been more detail to explain it even better. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
| + | Rating: 7 | ||
| + | Comments: The viewpoints could have explained better , in the sense of giving an overview of what is referred to 'the field'. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
| + | Rating: 8 | ||
| + | Comments: seems like the page is only edited twice, by two different persons. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 | ||
| + | Comments: there is no overview. So the reader has to read the entire text to find himself an answer on his question. If there was an overview, the reader has a better sight on what is in this page | ||
| + | b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming | ||
| + | table of contents. | ||
| + | Rating: 1 | ||
| + | Comments: is missing | ||
| + | c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) | ||
| + | Rating: 10 | ||
| + | Comments: Even three categories are counted in. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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/a | ||
| + | Comments: no images | ||
| + | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
| + | Rating: n/a | ||
| + | Comments: no images | ||
| + | |||
| + | 9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. | ||
| + | Rating: 7 | ||
| + | Comments: Stays indeed focused on the main topic. Beter it is better to give an overview of the page and use some kind of figure to give a better overview of what the field is. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Evaluated by --[[User:MichielVanRijn|MichielVanRijn]] 11:35, 26 October 2012 (CEST)==== | ||
Revision as of 09:35, 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: 7 Comments: Wel known persons in this course describe the ‘field’.
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: 8 Comments: It is a well written page. The spelling and grammar are also correct. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 10 Comments: …
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 9 Comments: In the text the reference Gregory et al could be used in stead to refering every person. 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: 9 Comments: Only in one reference a page number is missing.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 Comments: This page gives you indeed a better insight in the topic. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 Comments: There are no unneccessary detail but there could have been more detail to explain it even better.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: …… (0-10) Comments: …
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 8 Comments: seems like the page is only edited twice, by two different persons.
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 Comments: there is no overview. So the reader has to read the entire text to find himself an answer on his question. If there was an overview, the reader has a better sight on what is in this page b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 1 Comments: is missing c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 10 Comments: Even three categories are counted in.
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/a Comments: no images b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: n/a Comments: no images
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 Comments: Stays indeed focused on the main topic. Beter it is better to give an overview of the page and use some kind of figure to give a better overview of what the field is.
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 Comments: Wel known persons in this course describe the ‘field’.
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: 8 Comments: It is a well written page. The spelling and grammar are also correct. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 10 Comments: …
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 9 Comments: In the text the reference Gregory et al could be used in stead to refering every person. 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: 9 Comments: Only in one reference a page number is missing.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 Comments: This page gives you indeed a better insight in the topic. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 Comments: There are no unneccessary detail but there could have been more detail to explain it even better.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7 Comments: The viewpoints could have explained better , in the sense of giving an overview of what is referred to 'the field'.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 8 Comments: seems like the page is only edited twice, by two different persons.
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 Comments: there is no overview. So the reader has to read the entire text to find himself an answer on his question. If there was an overview, the reader has a better sight on what is in this page b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 1 Comments: is missing c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 10 Comments: Even three categories are counted in.
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/a Comments: no images b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: n/a Comments: no images
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 Comments: Stays indeed focused on the main topic. Beter it is better to give an overview of the page and use some kind of figure to give a better overview of what the field is.
