Talk:Bruno Latour

From Geography

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: This page is quite relevant for the course, because Bruno Louter has been an important philosopher. He is one of the developers of the actor network theory, which is important theory because its about the relation between human and non- humans in space. This has close links to the content of 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: 8 (0-10) Comments: The text is written in a clear way and is of good standard. Most information is useful. The grammar and spelling used is correct.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The piece of works has a short introduction of his live, which is enough to know about the background of the writer. Further information is given about the theory. The action network theory also has an own Wikipedia, so maybe this information is double, but it’s good that it’s also briefly discussed on this page. Maybe it would also be good to explain and write shortly about the other works mentioned in the text.

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: Literature is used and there are an sufficient amount of sources. In the text itself there are not many references to sources used. Another point of critique is that not all sources are mentioned in the text. So it’s lacking on references in the text.

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: 6/10 (0-10) Comments: There are not many sources mentioned in the text. No page numbers are mentioned, so it’s not that easy to find the information back in the sources mentioned. This could be improved.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: The main topics are discussed on the page, his live and his main theory. Maybe it would have been good if extra information was given on other works he made. They are mentioned but not explained in the text.

b) It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8/10 (0-10) Comments: They focused on the main issues, so no extra or very detailed information is given. This is good, but maybe this can also mean that some information might be missing.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 6/10 (0-10) Comments: The information given is fairly positive. Of course it’s difficult to be very critical on a person, but a paragraph with for example critique on his theory is missing.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 8/10 (0-10) Comments: The page is written and after that only small improvements have been made to improve the text. This is done in a positive way, for example by an inserted image, which makes the page better and more attractive.

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: 5/10 (0-10) Comments: An introduction is missing, the text immediately starts with his live. There’s only one paragraph that describes the theory. This could be improved with an introduction and a separate paragraph on his live.

b) Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6/10 (0-10) Comments: There’s is no table of content. This is not really needed, because the writer of the wiki didn’t make use of paragraphs. Because the text is not that long, it is clear to the reader what the content of page is. As already mentioned it would be better to make use of paragraphs in a better way.

c) Categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8/10 (0-10) Comments: The page is categorized in two categories. This is sufficiently done.

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: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: There’s an illustration of Bruno Latour on the page. Underneath the picture there’s an external link to the source of the picture. There’s no source of the picture in the references paragraph. Just an external link underneath the picture.

b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 9/10 (0-10) Comments: An image of the philosopher written about is relevant to the topic. It’s nice for the reader to have an image of the person written about.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7/10 (0-10) Comments: The length is sufficient. Not to long, but most important information is given. The text is interesting to read and not that long so it doesn’t get boring. The image makes the page more attractive which is also positive and makes it nicer to read.

Evaluated by --MathijsLammers 14:55, 25 October 2012 (CEST)