Talk:Critical geography

From Geography

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: This wiki doesn't really add anything to the course in the sense of explaining key concepts or making something clear through examples. What it does is giving us a window to have a critical look at our own researchfield, and that is always helpful.

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 consists of clear and grammatically correct sentences.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The wiki covers the whole subject, but it really doesn't mention any details. For example the three "schools" that are mentioned are merely mentioned and there is almost no explanation. This could be improved in the future.

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: Multiple scientific sources are used to lay out this concept. That makes it verifiable and accurate in my opinion.

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: 3 (0-10) Comments: It doesn't use in-line citations. There are references listed at the end.

4. Broad in its coverage:

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Although short, the entry covers the very core of "critical geography" and at least makes it clear what it is about.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is really focussed and to the point. No "wanderings" are used.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: The wiki is written in a very neutral and to-the-point way, no personal or emotional aspects are involved.

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: It has only been changed (edited) two times and one of those times it was by the original writer. It is still clear and there are no contradictions of any kind.

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 structure could be improved, it starts with a short explanation of the concept, but then the "story" goes on. A little more structure (subheadings) could really improve this entry.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: The structure with sections could be improved, they are missing.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5 (0-10) Comments: Headings are not used, room for improvement.

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: Pictures are nog really helpful with this concept, text can explain it and pictures would not be helpful.

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: As mentioned, the text is very to the point. Details are left out and the wiki really is a summary of the concept of ontology.

Evaluated by TeunVanDeVen 14:41, 26 October 2012 (CEST)