Talk:Physical constraints
From Geography
Evaluation physical constraints
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 7 (0-10)
Comments: As a part of the three constraints of spatial interaction it helps to understand why and how we interact within our environment.
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 (0-10)
Comments: It has a professional standard and is easy to understand. However, the grammar and spelling aren't always correct.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: No major facts are missing (according to me).
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: several sources and following the APA
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: published opinions are used and correctly referred to other authors.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: -
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: -
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: every viewpoint is mentioned together with the author and is not judged.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: article is a whole
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(0-10)
Comments: there is a lead section with contents, but it starts after the introduction. it should be above the introduction, in this way the introduction could be one of the topics.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 7 (0-10)
Comments: same as 7a
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: 6(0-10)
Comments: topic of introduction is missing above the first lines (looks a bit disorganized). good: link with structuration theory and many links to other pages.
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: - (0-10)
Comments: No images, I think images are not necessary to explain physical constraints
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: -(0-10)
Comments: -
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 8 (0-10)
Comments: no unnecessary details, but there's some repeating of what physical constraints are in topic 'link to structuration theory'
Evaluated by Rosalie Koen on 26 October 2012.
