Talk:Because motive
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: The because motive is part of the material studied 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: 8 (0-10) Comments: Spelling and grammar are correct. The text is easily readable, which is a positive aspect of this wiki.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: No major facts are neglected. The because motive is described in a clear and complete way.
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: References in the text and in the list of literature is present.
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: There are no direct citations, but there are examples of the because motive.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8(0-10) Comments: All aspects of the because motive are covered.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: It stays focussed on the topic, although the text could have been more concise.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Two people have worked on this wiki. Still, it seems to be stable and forms a coherent whole.
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: 1 (0-10) Comments: There is no concise lead section.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: First, a brief explanation of the in-order-to motive is given, after which the because-motive is described. This wiki needs more hierarchy, since it needs an introductory section.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 6(0-10) Comments: It needs an introductory section.
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: 7(0-10) Comments: The wiki stays focussed on the topic, although it could have been more concise.
Reviewed by Bert Hegger.
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.
Rating: 8
Comments: It is relevant because it is part of the action theory within this course
2. Well-written:
Rating: 6,5
a)It is well written. However, I think a lot of the text are citated.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: …… (6,5) It is a bit too detailed. I think it would have been better to put the summary in the first and afterwards a thorough explanation.
The explanation is clear, but I think it could have been done with less words.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable:
a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: …… (8) Comments: There is a reference in the text.
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. There one refererence within the text. But seen the difficulty of the text at some places, I wonder wheter the text have been citated or not.
Rating: …… (no rating)
Comments: …
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; It does, but a bit too long
Rating: …… (7)
Comments: …
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: …… (5)
Comments: No too detailed.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: …… (10)
Comments: I have not found any bias, or personal judgement.
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Rating: …… (9)
Comments: No big changes
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)
Comments: There is no table of contents. However, the author starts explanation of another definition. In this was way you can understand other part. However, I would not have put the summary at the end
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
Rating: …… (0-10)
Comments: … It is a small entry, because of this, there is fair overview
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)
Rating: …… (5)
Comments: There is no category. Perhaps you can use as category: action theory
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: …… ()
Comments: … There are no images
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: …… (0-5).
Comments: too detailed.
Evaluated by--HennyLi 15:38, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
