Talk:Society
From Geography
Evaluating Wiki Entries Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 9 Comments: In this course society is one of the main topics.
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: 6 Comments: …
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 Comments: The topic 'society' is a very broad subject. There are many ways in which to describe. In my opinion the information about the subject is sufficient for this course. 3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 7 Comments: As far as I can see the information is well referenced 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: 7 Comments: In the first and last parts several in-line citations including page numbers. In the middle is room for more citations.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 Comments: The subject is being discussed through the eyes of several philosophers and geographers.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 Comments: It stays focused on the subject.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7 Comments: …
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 Comments: It is somewhat stable, most of the editing is more contribution to the subject.
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: 3 Comments: There is no clear structure.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 0 Comments: The contributors have not used headings.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 0 Comments: there are no entries specified, these can of course be improved.
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 pictures included.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 0 Comments: See above.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 Comments: clear and focused on the subject
Evaluated by
Doris Roelvink, October 24th 2012
