Talk:Central Place Theory

From Geography

Latest revision as of 10:19, 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: 4 (0-10) Comments: It isn’t a theory of this curses. It is a theory that is associated in other disciplines.

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: 6 (0-10) Comments: It is written without spelling or grammar fouls. It is also written with some creativity, but the sentence are too long.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: There is written allot about the context and his origin.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The sources are good and of high quality, and the APA guidelines has been followed. But there are only two sources.

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: 5 (0-10) Comments: There aren’t in line citations.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: The writher focused on the right aspects.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: There is totally no detail, this could be maybe some more.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: There is no personal affection of the writer in the text.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: There is just one editor.

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: 9 (0-10) Comments: there is a good summarizing in the beginning.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: There are subsections in the text but they don’t have headings.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 3 (0-10) Comments: The text isn’t categorized.

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: - (0-10) Comments: There are no illustrations.

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: 8 (0-10) Comments: The text is long enough.

Contributance

Evaluated by Pieter van Luijk 24 October 2012