Talk:Autopoiesis

From Geography

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 Comments: It's very clear

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: 6 Comments: It looks at first a bit like a mess, it can be made more clear. The grammar is correct. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 Comments: I think that's hard to tell, since I don't know a lot about the subject. But is seems clear.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 10 Comments: Very well done. 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: 8 Comments: In the text it sometimes misses references or pagenumbers.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 9 Comments: b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 Comments: It can be a bit broader even.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 9 Comments: It seems neutral.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 10 Comments: Not a lot of editers

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's not a very clear lead. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 Comments: Like I said before, it's a bit of a mess. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5 Comments: No categories yet.

8. Illustrated: if possible, by images, maps, schematic overviews: Not relevant

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 9 Comments: It's might be a bit bigger even.

User: IrisVanDiest --IrisVanDiest 15:24, 21 October 2012 (CEST)