Talk:Alfred Schütz

From Geography

Evaluating

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 Comments: Alfred Schutz has many theories that fit in the Action Theoretic Approach. In this entry his theories are summarized, that helps to understand his theories if you further study them.

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 Comments: The entry is written wel, it is professional written so it is easy to understand. But there are some spelling faults. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 Comments: I think the most major facts are presented in this entry

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 6) Comments: In the text in the entry there are references to a source of Werlen, but these source is not included in the 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 Comments: There aren't in-line direct citations in the texts. The source of the image is not clear.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 Comments: I Think the most important aspects are written in the entry. But there is not anything written about the personnal life of Alfred Schutz. I think that would be important to add this because then people can understand why Alfred Schutz has written some theories. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 Comments: The topic is clearly focussed on, it is also good that there are given some examples, then people understand it better.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 Comments: This entry is written in a correct neutral way

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 Comments: The page did not change very much times and it did not change significantly.

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) Comments: I don't think the lead does summarizes the topic. It does not prepare the reader for further information. It actually direct starts with the theories of Schutz. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5,5 Comments: There is a system with headings and further information but I think the page could have been better structured c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 6 Comments: I think the biogriphal category is missing.

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:6 Comments: I cannot find many information about the image. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 8 Comments: The image is relevant because it is a photo of Alfred Schutz.

9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 Comments: I think the page should no be longer. Now it is summarizing concepts of Alfred Schutz. It is enough I think.

Evaluated by

Lieke Vogels