Talk:Structure

From Geography

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 Comments: Structure isn't important for spatial actian, but it is for it's opposite, spacial behaviour.

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 Comments: Well written, and understandable.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 Comments: Everything is ok.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 10 Comments: APA as it should be.

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: 10 Comments: APA as it should be.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 6 Comments: The text is not really extensive, yet it is enough.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 Comments: A small text and an okay explanation of the phenomenon.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating:10 Comments: Completely neutral point of view.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 9 Comments: This article has only two writers.

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 is no lead section, but it is not really needed because of the small amount of text.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 Comments: Very clear headings, but the heading "authors" is missing.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 10 Comments: I think all the entry's are there.

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: 0 Comments: No illustrations available.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 0 Comments: No illustrations available.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 6 Comments: A very small text, but an okay explanation of the phenomenon.