Talk:Talcott Parsons
From Geography
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It's not a researcher that is famous as a geographer but his ideas have influenced other scientist so much that he is substantially imporant.
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: 8 (0-10) Comments: The text is well writtn and without spelling failures. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: It explains well that he is mainly sociologist but also influenced others. Only the part why he is important to geography could be added.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: References are given but in the text it lacks quotes and references. It is not clear which information has been researched from which source. 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: 4 (0-10) Comments: No citations.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The text tells us the main ideas of Parsons, but not anything more like examples. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It's quite focused on the topic.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It's quite neutral but text like: 'Parsons' is best know for...' is not the best way to describe a persons work I think.
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: It has been enhanced once, and links being added later so it has been quite stable.
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: 4 (0-10) Comments: There is no lead with a summary. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6(0-10) Comments: It's one piece of text, no sections are added. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is being categorize well, but it could als be categorised to 'persons'
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: … 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: 7 (0-10) Comments: It's surely not to long, but misses some examples and information about why this person is relevant to this study/course.
