Talk:Schleiermacher

From Geography

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

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: This wiki doesn't really add anything to the course in the sense of explaining key concepts or making something clear through examples. What it does is giving us a very brief biography of Schleiermacher.

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: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki consists of clear and grammatically correct sentences. In that way it is a rather good wiki.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: It is very short and the reason why it has to do anything with geography is unclear to me. This needs some extra explanation.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:

a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: It is only based on one source, but that makes it at least verifiable and accurate enough in my opinion.

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: 3 (0-10) Comments: It doesn't use in-line citations. There is a reference listed at the end.

4. Broad in its coverage:

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: It is very short and it contains only a small amount of information.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is really focussed and to the point. No "wanderings" are used.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is written in a very neutral and to-the-point way, no personal or emotional aspects are involved.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: It is created and have not been edited since. It is very stable.

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: 5 (0-10) Comments: The structure could be improved, it now just contains a piece of a story and it is without a clear purpose.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: The structure with sections could be improved, they are missing.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: Headings are not used, room for improvement.

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: 5 (0-10) Comments: There is a picture of Schleiermacher, but no copyright status is mentioned.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: The image is of Schleiermacher, which makes it a 100% relevant.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: As mentioned, the text is very to the point. Details are left out and the wiki really is a small biography. A comment on the length is that it is maybe to short.

Evaluated by TeunVanDeVen 15:00, 26 October 2012 (CEST)