Talk:Corporeality

From Geography

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Corporeality is pretty relevant for this course, due to the fact that it shows what kind of thoughts Niklas Luhmann had on the human body. He saw it as a physical barrier for psychic and social systems, which are very important 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 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is pretty well-written. But some phrase could be better structured, like: ‘’Apart from the psychic and social systems, machines and organisms are also systems.’’ Here I would chose to end this phrase as follows: machines and organisms are systems as well. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The subject is pretty well placed in the context certainly in the first few phrases and I don’t see any major facts which could be neglected.

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: The reference ise used pretty well. But I would consider it would be better to use more than one reference to make you scientifical story stronger. Secondly the page numbers are missing. 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: 5 (0-10) Comments: There are no inline-citations in this wiki, althought it is clear that the reference used is pretty important in this wiki the direct quotes are missing. That would be something to improve in this wiki, add at least one in-line citation.

4. Broad in its coverage:

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Main aspects are clear. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This wiki certainly stays focussed on the topic and has no room for unnecessary detail at all.

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

Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It is a neutral written wiki. The only thing that could be improved is some room for critiques or other views about this approach probably.

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

Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: This is a stable wiki, with less changes over time. This could be caused by the fact that it is not a very complicated and large wiki offcourse.

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 (0-10) Comments: The lead summarizes the topic and places it in context, in that way the reader is prepared for the detail in the subsequent sections. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: This wiki is probably to short for a an appropiate structure, so I guess it is no problem that there is no real structure in a short wiki like this. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This wiki is well categorized in the social system theory where corporeality is part of.

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: … 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: This wiki is short and concise as it should be.

Evaluated by

--MaikVanDeVeen 19:16, 31 December 2012 (CET)