Talk:John Searle

From Geography

Revision as of 12:01, 16 October 2012

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 Comments: Not so much for the man Searle, but his ideas are relevant.

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: Some miss spelling, but not bad.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 Comments: Everything is ok.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 5 Comments: I see no years of publications.

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: 4 Comments: I see references that aren't mentioned in the text (Zierhofer).

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 Comments: It makes clear to me who Searle was and what some of his ideas were, but not all of them.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 Comments: A small text and a good explanation of the phenomenon.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating:10 Comments: Completely neutral point of view.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 6 Comments: It is edited a lot, lately.

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: 1 Comments: There is no lead section

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 9 Comments: Very clear to me, because of the use of the headings.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 Comments: I think almost al the entry's are there, except for "Language philosophy"

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: 0 Comments: No illustrations available.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 0 Comments: No illustrations available.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 9 Comments: A small text and a good explanation of the phenomenon.