Talk:Francisco Varela
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: The concept of autopoiesis is relevant for the course. Although some things are said about autopoietic systems, it could have been elaborated more. |
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: Its prose is engaging, well written. |
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: 7 (0-10) Comments: most | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Although the most information is given, as said the concept of autopoiesis could have gotten a bit more attention. |
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: references are not cited in the text. |
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: | + | Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Although the reader gets an impression of Varela and his work, it could have been elaborated a bit more. |
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: 8 (0-10) Comments: | + | Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is clear and focussed on the topic. |
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 looked at without bias, but the topics could use some more context. |
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: Only two editors have contributed to this wiki, so the content 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: 7 (0-10) Comments: | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It's directly clear that the topic focusses on Varela and his work, but it could have been a bit more elaborated whitin subsequent sections. |
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: 8 (0-10) Comments: The structure | + | Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The structure is clear, even so is the table of content. |
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: There are no categories added, but this text could be filed under '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: | + | Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: The source of the image is provided. |
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
| - | Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is a relevant image which portrays | + | Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is a relevant image which portrays Francisco Varela clearly. |
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: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is focussed on the main topic, the person of Fracisco Varela, but could have gone into a little more detail. |
Latest revision as of 09:55, 26 October 2012
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The concept of autopoiesis is relevant for the course. Although some things are said about autopoietic systems, it could have been elaborated more.
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: Its prose is engaging, well written. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Although the most information is given, as said the concept of autopoiesis could have gotten a bit more attention.
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: references are not cited in the text.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Although the reader gets an impression of Varela and his work, it could have been elaborated a bit more. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is clear and focussed on the topic.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Viewpoints are looked at without bias, but the topics could use some more context.
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: Only two editors have contributed to this wiki, so the content 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: 7 (0-10) Comments: It's directly clear that the topic focusses on Varela and his work, but it could have been a bit more elaborated whitin subsequent sections. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The structure is clear, even so is the table of content. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: There are no categories added, but this text could be filed under '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: 7(0-10) Comments: The source of the image is provided. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is a relevant image which portrays Francisco Varela clearly.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is focussed on the main topic, the person of Fracisco Varela, but could have gone into a little more detail.
