Talk:Geosophy
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 (0-10) Comments: Because this wiki gives us an idea about other ways to look at geography, it is useful. Different insights are always worth mentioning.
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 wiki consists of clear and grammatically correct sentences. In that way it is a rather good wiki. There are also no spellingmistakes.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It is short, but it covers the entire subject.
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: It is based on three scientific sources that are mentioned under "references".
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 (0-10) Comments: It uses in-line citations. There are no page numbers mentioned.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It is short but accurate, it covers the subject.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is really focussed and to the point. No "wanderings" are used.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is written in a very neutral and to-the-point way, no personal or emotional aspects are involved.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: It is edited twice, by the same author. It seems pretty 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: The structure could be improved, it is a clear story however. Some more structuration could improve it.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: The structure with sections could be improved, they are missing.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: Headings are not used, room for improvement.
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: There are no images.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: - (0-10) Comments: Images are not very likely to improve this entry as text makes it clear perfectly.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: However more details could be added, the core of this wiki is good.
Evaluated by TeunVanDeVen 15:25, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
