Talk:Aleph
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It is not an essential key-concept to understand this course, but, in the literature prescribed, the story of the Aleph is used to describe Thirdspace.
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: Prose is concise and of a professional standard and tone. 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: Concept is made clear and understandable, placed in a geographical context (and the context of this course).
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 9 (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: There are several interesting citations that are cited in the text, but page numbers are missing.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The concept is made clear and placed in a geographical context. An enhancement providing some more (historical) context and background information would still be a valuable addition to the wiki. To keep the wiki concentrated and focused, a list of 'Further reading' could be added.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: All aspects mentioned are relevant. There is no lack of focus and there are no distracting details.
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, more perspectives could be added but are not necessary to understand the concept in context of the course.
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: The wiki has been published not to long ago, which makes this difficult to rate at this point. But as of this evaluation, its content appears to be amply sufficient. Therefore, the expactations for its stability are positive.
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: 8 (0-10) Comments: There is not a clearly distinguished lead, but the first alinea forfills the same function properly.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: structure is not very extended, but is sufficient according to the length of the text. In case the page would be enhanced, the structure will need to be expanded.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: Categories such as Historical background, The aleph and Thirdspace or Examples of the Aleph 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 is no image added.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: 0 (0-10) Comments: There is no image added.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: The wiki does stay focussed on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. The length of the text is perfectly readable.
- Page evaluated by Isis Boot - --IsisBoot 00:23, 25 October 2012 (CEST)
