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 ...")
Newer edit →
Revision as of 09:34, 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.
