Talk:Derek Gregory
From Geography
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It’s a important researcher within this course so his biography is very usefull.
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: It is well written, and without spelling or grammar foulds. It is also written with some creativity.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: I miss his contributions to the human geography.
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: The sources are good and of high quality, and the APA guidelines has been followed.
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 (0-10) Comments: There are some quete’s that are in my perception to long.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The writher focused on the right aspects.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Only the long quote was a unnecessary detail.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: There is no personal affection of the writer in the text. This is also hard to in a biography.
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: There are just two editors.
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: there is no summarizing introduction.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: There are some headings but nu subtitles. So there is no system of hierarchical. The subtitles are very usefull.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: I miss no category.
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: 3 (0-10) Comments: Photo isn’t tagged with his copyright status.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It is just a photo of Giddens. Nothing more, but also nothing less.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Writer has used the ability to put some links in the wiki in the right way so the text has a good focus on the topic. But the text is a bit short.
Contributance
Evaluated by Pieter van Luijk 24 October 2012
