Talk:Communicative rationality

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: Because rationality is important for the way people think, I think rationality is an important term. Communicative rationality is also important to achieve consensus. Because communication is not a skill/topic thats typical for geography I 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: 6(0-10) Comments: There were some spelling fault I had to correct. Some sentences don't read really easy.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: The text is very short so the chance is big some major facts are missing, details are at least missing.

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: Only two sources have been used, APA style is good.

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 (0-10) Comments: Citations have been used well, again only two sources though.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: That is exactly what this text is doing. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is very focused, but to much focused. (too short)

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It's written neutrally, no subjective information found.

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: The text has only been changed once.

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: The whole text can be seen as a lead, there are no further sections. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6(0-10) Comments: Idem dito, one big piece of text, so not very well. But maybe the text is to short to be cut in sections thats why I gave it a 6. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Categorized to right categorie.

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

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: To short, more could be told. It does stay focused on the main topics, but important details could be missing. Als examples would be nice.