Talk:Behaviourism
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Usefull terminology, with clear distinction from Behaviouralism. How this term is used in Geography can be added.
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: easy to read set-up, incl example. Minor typing errors
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: subject is clearly explained.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: sources are added. 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 (0-10) Comments: source is clear
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: subject is explained, but can be further elaborated, category can be added. Who else contributed to this subject and how.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: subject is clearly explained with a good example
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: …
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: …
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: not available, but not necessary due to the short size of the text.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: headings not used, or not correct
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 3 (0-10) Comments: missing
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: 6 (0-10) Comments: good image added but no copyright status
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 8 (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: …
Evaluated by
Dennis Prince--DennisPrince 14:31, 1 October 2012 (CEST)
1. Relevance: 7 Relevant, because this is part of the history of action theoretical geography.
2. Well-written: 7 It is well-written, because it is easy to understand, but maybe it is to simple.
3. well-researched a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines: 9 Sources are added following 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: 7 Sources are good but can be beter, because it would have been better if the sources were all scientific articles instead of naming the colleges.
4. Broad in its coverage a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: 8 I think that the most important things are explained in this text. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail: 9 Everything is told in a short text, nothing unnecessary.
5. Neutral: 10 Not one subjective comment found
6. Stable: 10 it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. There is no discourse about this subject.
7. Well-structured: a) a lead: 6 not available, but there would not be any use for it. b) appropriate structure: 5 There is not a contenttable, but this is not neccesary, because of the shortness of the text. c) categories: 1 There is not a categorization.
8. Illustrated a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 5 There is not a image available, but I don't think it is needed here. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: /
9. Length: 9 It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Evaluated by
Malou van Woerkum, 16-10-2012
