Talk:Othering

From Geography

Revision as of 13:49, 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: 6/10 (0-10) Comments: This page is relevant to the course. Though it’s not the most important philosopher of the time.

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: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: The page is well written and quite easy to read. Grammar and spelling is correct.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6/10 (0-10) Comments: The page tells something about his live and works. But the content of the works and theory could be explained more extensive.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 5 (1-10) Comments: There are different sources, which is sufficient. But references are not mentioned in the text, so it’s difficult to verify the content.

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 are hardly any inline citations and page numbers are not mentioned. Sources do have an external link.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: It has coverage of his live and works, and some examples that make the content clearer. But as already said more attention could be given to his theories and works.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It’s a clear and brief description of his live and works, no unnecessary details are given

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It’s represents viewpoints fairly.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The content is stable, some more information is given and examples are included, but this makes the text of higher quality.

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: 8 (0-10) Comments: The page is well structured with a lead and a table of content. The content of the page is clear the reader.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The table of content is clear and the page is well structured.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The page has one category and this is done in a correct way.

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: 6 (0-10) Comments: The page has a image of Louis Althusser, but a reference or source is missing.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: A picture of Louis Althusser is relevant to the subject.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The length is fine, it’s written in summary style and easy to read.

evaluated by Mathijs Lammers