Talk:Actor network theory
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This wiki is highly relevant to the course, due to the fact that the actor network theory , because it gives a new dimension on the importance of an actor, human or non-human in the creating of a network
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: This wiki is well-written in multiple ways, first of all it is a very clear text, but secondly there are hardly any spelling or gramma failures in this wiki. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: In this wiki itself the actor network analysis is placed in the context pretty well. But a point of improvement on this part could be about the linking to other wiki pages. Which is not done enough in this wiki. Their could created a lot more links, by using some different words in this wiki and also by linking already used words like ‘Human’ to other wiki sites.
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: The references in this wiki are pretty well moderated, different sources were used and the APA guidelines were usually followed. But on this part a small point of criticism, the reference of ‘The dictionary of human geography’ is not complete. Only the author and the title of the book is mentioned. That should be customized 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 (0-10) Comments: Only one in-line citation is used in this pretty extensive wiki. It was used in the right way, including page nummers. But their could be some more inline-citations added to this wiki, to make it even more interesting and clear.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The main aspects are very clear in this wiki b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: This wiki is mostly focussed on the topic of actor network theory and i wouldn’t say that there are much unnecessary details, but it might be possible to shorten the wiki a little bit to make it even more clear and readable for everyone.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The neutrality of this wiki is certainly clear, there is no opinion discernable and even a critique on the actor network theory is added to this wiki. Which makes it possible to judge on the actor network theory from different angels for the reader(s).
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 edited not many times but at the times this wiki is edited, it was done in a proper and structured way. So you can definitly say this is a stable 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: In the text of this wiki the reader is well prepared for the detail in the subsequent question. Part of criticism here is about the lacking of several links to other (internal) wiki sites, which would put this wiki even more in the right context. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The structure of this wiki is very clear and usefull and due to that this wiki can be seen as well-structured. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: I don’t see any categories missing in this wiki
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: I think it might be possible to shorten the wiki a little bit, but the length overall can be considered as quite good. There is not to much interest in unnecessary detail and in parts of the wiki a good summary style is used.
Evaluated by
--MaikVanDeVeen 16:00, 31 December 2012 (CET)
