Talk:Space
From Geography
Evaluating Wiki Entries Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 Comments: Certainly relevant, because of its reoccurring in various themes of geography.
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: It is sufficient, but nothing more.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 5 Comments: The definition could have been more detailed, after reading it some questions still remain.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 7 Comments: …
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: …
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 5 Comments: Parts of the term space are missing, could have been more extensive.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 Comments: It stays maybe to much focused on the subject and to little on the relevant aspects.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 Comments: …
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 8 Comments: …
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: 5 Comments: Hasn't been made.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6 Comments: Sections are made but it would have been positive as there were more sections made.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 1 Comments: Not available
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: 1 Comments: Not available
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 1 Comments: Not available
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 6 Comments: I would rather had that, in this case, there were more details opposed to to less details. It greatly influences the quality of the written text.
Evaluated by
Paul van den Hogen--PaulHogen 16:25, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
