Talk:Ideal Types

From Geography

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7

Comments: It is relevant for this course as you can use it explains the theory of Max Weber

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: 7

Comments: There are some grammar errors

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.

Rating: 7

Comments: It is clear and to the point.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:

a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;

Rating: 1

Comments: There are no references in the text. And the list of literature is not written regarding APA guideline

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: 1

Comments: There are no literal citations, but there is no reference to the literature.

4. Broad in its coverage:

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Rating: 8

Comments: It does cover the main topic,

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Rating: 5

Comments: It stays focused on the topic. But maybe it should have been more to the point by explaining it a eventually giving an example.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8

Comments: Viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Rating: 7

It has not changed 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: 7

Comments: There is no lead section, but is not really needed as we deal with one topic.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 7

See comment at 7a

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)

It is well categorized

Rating: 8

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: not relevant

Comments: There are no images.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Rating: not relevant

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

Comments: To the point

---

Reviewed by --HennyLi 16:37, 26 October 2012 (CEST)