Talk:Boundary of social system
From Geography
1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: Social systems and their boundaries are highly relevant to this course. Because it shows how people are affected by social systems and how people affect those social systems.
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 wiki is well-written without real spelling and grammar failures. But some phrases could be a little more of professional standard. Words like ‘’says Luhmann ‘’ could for instance better be changed by according to Luhmann. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: There are no major facts about the boundary of social systems neglected in this wiki.
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: The references in the referencelist are structured well by APA guidelines. But in the text of the wiki itself there is no reference at all. That could certainly improved in this wiki. 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: 5 (0-10) Comments: There are no in-line citations as there are no references in the text of this wiki. This is something that definitly should be improved. There could also be some more links added to other wiki’s for instance about place.
4. Broad in its coverage:
a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The main aspects are well addressed in this wiki b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is short and to the point. The part of boundaries is only pretty short, while that is the main aspect of this wiki, this part should be increased i guess.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: This wiki is certainly neutral. There is no opinion in the whole wiki, the only thing is that there is no room for another viewpoint about social systems and their boundaries.
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: Certainly stable, there haven’t been lots of radical changes in this wiki in the last years.
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: 8 (0-10) Comments: The lead is clear and certainly prepares the reader for the further detail in the subsequent sections b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki has an appropriate structure with different sections which are clear for the reader. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki has been wel categorized in the social system 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: …… (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: Apart from the relatively short part about the boundaries, I guess the length of this wiki is pretty fine.
Evaluated by
--MaikVanDeVeen 19:41, 31 December 2012 (CET)
