Talk:Dividing practices

From Geography

1. Relevance:

Rating: 9

Comments: This wiki refers to multiple important concepts regarding this course.

2. Well-written:

a) well-written: The text is clear and comprehensible. The concepts that are discussed are explained well and thorougly Rating:(8)

b) comprehensive: Reading the text I missed no major elements. Rating: (8)

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:

a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating:(9)

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: …… (7) Comments: Not all websites seem to be totally reliable.

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: (10) Comments: When further explanation is needed, the writer refers to other internal pages.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: (9) Comments: no subjective comments are given.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: (10) Comment: This page has barely changed.

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: (8) Comments: It is welle structured, but not perfect yet.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: (9) Comments: …

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: (1) Comments: It has not been categorised

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: none Comments: There are no images

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: none Comments: see above

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 10 Comments: It is written very compact: short, but sufficient

SimonTjoonk 15:25, 26 October 2012 (CEST)