Talk:Actant

From Geography

Evaluating Wiki Entries

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.

Rating: 8 Comments: The actant is relevant because of the actor-network theory. A main theory in this 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 Comments: A clear explanation of the topic.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.

Rating: 7 Comments: An actant exists in many different fields. There are actants in astrology as well as linguistics. Not all aspects of the actant are described in this entry but what is described is relevant for this course.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:

a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;

Rating: 8 Comments: The references used in this topic are indeed according to 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: 6 Comments: There are in-line citations, however page numbers are not included.

4. Broad in its coverage:

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Rating: 7 Comments: As said before there are many aspects of this topic, however these are not all relevant for this course. The main information relevant to this course is covered.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Rating: 8 Comments: No unnecessary details.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Rating: 8 Comments: The viewpoints are fairly, and as far as I can see unbiased.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Rating: 9 Comments: Very stable, once added to the wiki it remains the same only some links are added.

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: 7 Comments: This is a small subject so there aren't different sections. The text is well structured.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.

Rating: 7 Comments: For a small subject the contributors have not used different headings nor is there a table of contents.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)

Rating: 6 Comments: See above. A category that could be added is an example.

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: x Comments: No images.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Rating: x Comments: No images.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Rating: 8 Comments: The contributors have not gone in unnecessary details but stayed focused on the topic.

Evaluated by Doris Roelvink, October 26th 2012