Talk:Othering
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: 6/10 (0-10) Comments: This page is relevant to the cou...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) | Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) | ||
| - | 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: | + | 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: This page is relevant to the course, it discusses a theme that’s important to mainly orientalism, a main theme in the course. |
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; Rating: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: The page is 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, grammar and spelling are used correctly. |
| - | b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: | + | b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: The subject is described very clear and examples are given, no major facts are missing. |
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) | 3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) | ||
it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; | it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 (1-10) Comments: References are done following the APA guidelines, they used 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. | 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. | + | Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: There are hardly any inline citations and page numbers are not mentioned. This could be improved so the text is better verifiable. |
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; | 4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; | ||
| - | Rating: | + | Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The concept is explained well and clear, the examples make it clearer. |
| - | b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: | + | b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 (0-10) |
| - | Comments: | + | Comments: It explains othering without giving useless information. Most of the text is relevant to the topic. |
| - | 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: | + | 5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The page is neutral and just explains the concept |
| - | 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 | + | 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 page is stable, the page is edited a few times, which is good for the quality, because the page is improved then. |
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) | 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 | + | Comments: The page is well structured; it’s clear which paragraph describes what content. The page has an table of content. |
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) | 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. | 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: | + | c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 1 (0-10) Comments: The page is not 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 | 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: | + | content; Rating: 4 (0-10) Comments: The page is not illustrated by images, but it’s also quite difficult to find images that add something to the page. |
| - | b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: | + | 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 length is fine, it’s written in summary style and easy to read. | 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 | evaluated by Mathijs Lammers | ||
Latest revision as of 13:50, 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: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: This page is relevant to the course, it discusses a theme that’s important to mainly orientalism, a main theme in the course.
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, grammar and spelling are used correctly.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: The subject is described very clear and examples are given, no major facts are missing.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 7 (1-10) Comments: References are done following the APA guidelines, they used 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 are hardly any inline citations and page numbers are not mentioned. This could be improved so the text is better verifiable.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The concept is explained well and clear, the examples make it clearer.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It explains othering without giving useless information. Most of the text is relevant to the topic.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The page is neutral and just explains the concept
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 page is stable, the page is edited a few times, which is good for the quality, because the page is improved then.
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; it’s clear which paragraph describes what content. The page has an table of content.
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: 1 (0-10) Comments: The page is not 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: 4 (0-10) Comments: The page is not illustrated by images, but it’s also quite difficult to find images that add something to the page.
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 length is fine, it’s written in summary style and easy to read.
evaluated by Mathijs Lammers
