Talk:Autonomy of social(sub) systems

From Geography

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Pretty clear that this is a relevant issue on this part of the course. Due to the fact that the autonomy of social systems are very important in structuring human behaviour.

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: 5 (0-10) Comments: Especially on the part of punctuation some errors are made in this wiki, for example their is put a , before the word and in a certain phrase. And there are some issues with word order, like in the phrase:’’they exist only as environments for each other.’’ Exist and only should be switched of place in this phrase. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: The different phrases are put in a pretty strange order. It starts with a quote, while the last phrase clearifies what core meaning of the wiki is. The story is a little bit confusing, although it is held short and concise.

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 are provided with all sources of information following the APA guidelines, so no comment on this part. 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: 8 (0-10) Comments: Once in this wiki there is an in-inline citation, which is well referenced, following the APA guidelines.

4. Broad in its coverage:

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: It adressses to the main aspects of the topic, but that only happens in the last phrase of the wiki. It would probably be better to clearify the main aspects of the wiki in the first phrase and after that a inline-citation or further information could be described. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: No unnecessary details in this wiki, so well done.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This wiki seems quite neutral, without any preference of the writer is shown in this wiki.

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: This wiki is not edited way to much, so you could say that this wiki could be considered as being 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: 5 (0-10) Comments: The wiki could be better structured, with the core earlier in the wiki. In that way this wiki would be a better lead for the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: Structure could be better, as is mentioned earlier in this evaluation c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: I would choose to also make the contributors an apart categorie 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: 8 (0-10) Comments: It certainly stays focussed on the main topic and does not go into unnecessary detail. But their could be a bit more summary style in the wiki. Now the phrase are not fully constructed in summary style.

Evaluated by

--MaikVanDeVeen 15:23, 31 December 2012 (CET)