Talk:Sinn
From Geography
Evaluating Wiki Entries: Sinn
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 Comments: This entry is relevant for this course. The term Sinn is worth it to have an own entry because it is an essential part of another theory.
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: 6
Comments: The text is sufficient written. But there are some spelling and grammar errors.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.
Rating: I think the most important major facts of sinn are written in the entry. This is because it is a small entry.
Comments: 8
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;
Rating: 8
Comments: The author of the entry fererred very good and also in APA guideliness. But becaus of a design fault it could be possible that people don't see the second source under the heading '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: 7
Comments: There aren't direct citations, but the author referred well to the resources.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
Rating: 7
Comments: The topic does not have many main aspects. All the important aspects of the topic are described in this entry.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
Rating: 7)
Comments: There are not given many unnecessary details, but maybe the author could have given some examples so that the reader can understand the topic better.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8Comments: The text is written in a neutral way without bias.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: 10
Comments: The page is not changed yet because it is a new entry created by the author.
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 not a head led, but I also think that is not necessary because it is a small entry.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: 7
Comments: The structure is sufficient. Because it is a small entry I don't think it is necessary to have a really big structure
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating:7
Comments: There is one category about the content and I think that is enough because it is a small entry.
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: Thís entry does not have images
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Rating: …… (0-10)
Comments: This entry does not have images.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
Rating: 7
Comments: Because it is a small topic it is not necessary to create a big entry, I think this entry is small en clear enough. But maybe the author could had give one or more examples, then the reader couldu nderstand it better.
Evaluated by
Lieke Vogels, 23 october 2012
