Talk:Truth
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 Comments: Not so much for the man Searle, but his ideas are relevant.
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: A little short, but well written.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 8
Comments: Everything is ok.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 10 Comments: APA as it should be.
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: 10
Comments: APA as it should be.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 5 Comments: There is not written very much. However, it is difficult to write much about this subject.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 9
Comments: A small text and a good explanation of the phenomenon.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating:10
Comments: Completely neutral point of view.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 10
Comments: This article has only one writer.
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 lead section, but it is not really needed because of the small amount of text.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming
table of contents.
Rating: 9
Comments: Very clear to me, because of the use of the headings.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 10
Comments: I think all the entry's are there.
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 Comments: No illustrations available.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 0
Comments: No illustrations available.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 6
Comments: A very small text, but a good explanation of the phenomenon.