Talk:Constraints

Revision as of 07:44, 24 October 2012 by RenateVanHaaren (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

1. Relevance: 9. This concept is very relevant for this course, because constraints belong to the time geography of Hägerstrand.

2. Well-written: a) well-written: 8. It's well written, clear & professional. There are no spelling errors and the grammar is quite good.

b) comprehensive: 9. All constraints are well explained and the concept in general as well.

3. well-researched: a) 6,5. It follows the APA guidlines, but this could be better. For example italic text misses.

b) The text doesn't contain any citations.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) 8. This concept about constraints indeed talks about these constraints.

b) 7. There are no unnecessary details. I think there are not enough details, about prisms for example.

5. Neutral: 8. This text just contains facts and it's very neutral.

6. Stable: 9. These concepts are always there no matter what.

7. Well-structured: a) a lead: 8. There is a lead which introduces the concept.

b) appropriate structure: 9. There is a hierarchical structure with headlines.

c) categories: 7. There are a few categories and these are important to the subject.

8. Illustrated: This text doesn't contain any pictures.

9. Length: 7. The length is okay!

Page evaluated by Renate van Haaren, --RenateVanHaaren 09:44, 24 October 2012 (CEST)