Talk:Rationality
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Within this course it is of importance to understand the idea of rationality, as it is an important element in the philosophy and science and is used in various theories.
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: 9 (0-10) Comments: Its prose is engaging, concise and of a professional standard. Spelling and grammar are correct.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Information provided is clear and covers the main subjects and context.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: References are provided according to APA guidelines. On the list of references, only one title is mentioned, morereferences could have been used.
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: there is only one citation in the text, not giving page numbers. In the chapter, Types of Rationality, more citations could have been given.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Information provided is clear and covers the main aspects. Some more historical context could have been given.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: The wiki has a summarising style and does not go into unnecessary detail, the text is short and the focus is clear.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: Viewpoints are looked at without bias.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: Although the wiki has not been online for a very long time yet, the content and message appears to be 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: 9 (0-10) Comments: There is a well-written lead that provides in the most important background information. An overview of types of rationality is given in a separate section of the wiki.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The structure of this wiki is sufficient. Secondary headlines are being used, as the text is fairly short, there is no table of content (yet).
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 8(0-10) Comments: The information provided is categorized in a correct way. Categories on information of historical context and/or rationality and geography could be added.
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(0-10) Comments: There are no images.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 0 (0-10) Comments: There are no images.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: The wiki does stay focussed on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. Types of rationality are provided pointwise.
- Page evaluated by Isis Boot - --IsisBoot 16:25, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
