Talk:Structuralism
From Geography
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: Structuralism is a stream of thougth that is extensively treated in this course.
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: The grammar is correct and the style is decent.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: No major facts are neglected.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 10 (0-10) Comments: References to all sources are provided according to APA guidelines.
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: 9 (0-10) Comments: Good citations are used in this wiki. They add value to the wiki.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The main aspects of structuralism are described. Structuration theory is also described in this wiki. It would have been better if all information concerning structuration theory was placed in a structuration theory wiki.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Structuralism is followed by structuration theory, which is not necessary.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Viewpoints are represented without bias.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Many people have altered this wiki, which has most likely lead to paragraphs about structuralism and structuration theory in one wiki.
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: A citation describes structuralism.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 1(0-10) Comments: There are no headers.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The entry is categorised in a decent way.
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 (0-10) Comments: There are no images.
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 0 (0-10) Comments: There are no images.
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: Structuration theory is described too much. This should be done in the 'structuration theory' wiki.
