Talk:Linguistic turn
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 Comments: This page is just being sufficient for this course. The linguistic turn helps us to understand the language pragmatic and how this relates to spatial action.
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 Comments: …Though it is a well-written page, it is not of brilliant standard. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 Comments: I miss more informatie about how foucault is influenced by the linguistic turn and how it really relates to geography.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 7 Comments: What is the reference to Michel Foucault? 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 Comments: There is no in-line citatation with page number as a recource reference to Foucault.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 Comments: The explaining part could have done better. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 Comments: …
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 6 Comments: There is only one point of view, there is no such thing as critique on this page.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 Comments: Very stable, only two contributors.
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: 6 Comments: There is no overview, but due to the short text maybe this isn’t neccesary. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 Comments: There is none. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 2 Comments: Isn’t part of a category yet. Maybe there could be a language pragmatic category formed. Also the category persons is 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: 1 Comments: No pictures or what so ever. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 1 Comments: No images.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 Comments: It is focused on the main topic. But it could get more attention.
