Talk:Behavior vs. action
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Opposing behavior and action is a relevant addition to the 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: Its prose is engaging, of a professional standard. It is a clear text, and its spelling and grammar are correct. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: As behavior is being differentiated from action, a critical view is put on those two topics.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: references are listed and correctly described following the 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. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: references are correctly cited in the text, including page numbers.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The two topics are covered with their main aspects, and being looked at from the viewpoints of different thinkers. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The text stays concise.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Viewpoints are looked at without bias, the topics got context because they are looked at through the lenses of different thinkers.
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: Only one editor has created this topic, so it stays stable.
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 (0-10) Comments: There is no lead added, the writer goes directly to the main content of the aspects of the topic. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The structure is clear, however a little introduction could have made the topic even clearer. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5(0-10) Comments: The entry isn't categorized. It could be filed under 'Action theory'
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: 5(0-10) Comments: No illustrations are provided, but because of the topic, its not very necessary. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: No illustrations were added.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki does stay focussed on the main topics without going into unnecessary detail. It remains clear what the topic is about.
Evaluated by --AnneStrien 12:22, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
