Talk:Max Weber 2
From Geography
AnneStrien (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: Literature and concepts of Jürgen Habermas play a very important role in this course. 2. Well-written:...") |
AnneStrien (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. | 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Literature and concepts of Max Weber play a very important role in this course, however, the writer has added an extra page on Weber. A page on Max Weber was already created. |
2. Well-written: | 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; | 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: | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is well written, but because of lack of structure, it remains a bit unclear. |
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. | b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: most important information is provided. However, because a main topic on Max Weber was already added, some information is doubled. |
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: | 3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: references are listed and correctly described following the APA guidelines. | Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: references are listed and correctly described following the APA guidelines. | ||
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. | 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: | + | Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: citations do not include page numbers. |
4. Broad in its coverage: | 4. Broad in its coverage: | ||
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; | a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; | ||
| - | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Although the some aspects of Max Weber are being discussed, like already stated, the information given is extra. |
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. | b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: The topic's content could have been more accurate. |
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. | 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Viewpoints are represented without bias. |
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | 6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
| - | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki remains stable. |
7. Well-structured: | 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; | a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: The lead only introduces Max Webers' name, and it doesn't say anything about the further content. |
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. | b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: A clear structure is missing, so it remains unclear how the text was built up. No headings were added. |
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) | c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: No catagories are added. This wiki could be added to the catagory 'Persons'. |
8. Illustrated: if possible, by images, maps, schematic overviews: | 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; | a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; | ||
| - | Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: | + | Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: No image was added. |
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: |
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. | 9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Although the length is ok, because of a lacking structure it's too long to be only one alinea. More structure should be added in order for the length to be better structured. |
| + | |||
| + | Evaluated by --[[User:AnneStrien|AnneStrien]] 11:34, 26 October 2012 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 09:34, 26 October 2012
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Literature and concepts of Max Weber play a very important role in this course, however, the writer has added an extra page on Weber. A page on Max Weber was already created.
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 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is well written, but because of lack of structure, it remains a bit unclear. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: most important information is provided. However, because a main topic on Max Weber was already added, some information is doubled.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: references are listed and correctly described following the APA guidelines. 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: citations do not include page numbers.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Although the some aspects of Max Weber are being discussed, like already stated, the information given is extra. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: The topic's content could have been more accurate.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Viewpoints are represented without bias.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki remains stable.
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: 5 (0-10) Comments: The lead only introduces Max Webers' name, and it doesn't say anything about the further content. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: A clear structure is missing, so it remains unclear how the text was built up. No headings were added. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: No catagories are added. This wiki could be added to the catagory 'Persons'.
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: 5(0-10) Comments: No image was added. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments:
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Although the length is ok, because of a lacking structure it's too long to be only one alinea. More structure should be added in order for the length to be better structured.
Evaluated by --AnneStrien 11:34, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
