Talk:Structural functionalism

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 theory, I think, is relevant for the course. Because it's highly critised though I only give it a 6.

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: This text is well written and looks professional. No spelling flaws are being discovered by me. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This text is quite detailed and tells about the theorie well. It also puts the subject into context by adding a section 'critique'

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This text is well-researched in my opinion, alot of sources are being used and the APA guidelines are being respected. 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: 8(0-10) Comments: Idem dito, also in-line citations are used.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The text explains the main aspects of the theorie well. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Without giving to much details about things that are not relevant.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: No subjective information has been given

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 6(0-10) Comments: This might be the main critique on this article, it has been changed often.

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 (0-10) Comments: There is not given a summary at the start. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The structure of the text is quite good, exept the fact that no summary has been given. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: It has been categorized well.

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: …… (0-10) Comments: no images b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: …… (0-10) Comments: …

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The lenght is quite good I think. Only a summary is missing at the top