Talk:Edward Relph
From Geography
Evaluating Wiki Entries Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) 1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8 Comments: …
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: 9 Comments: Very well written.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 9 Comments: Good.
3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 8 Comments:
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 Comments: …
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 Comments: It adresses the main aspects of the work of Edward Relp, and some of its personal life. Its personal life isn't very elobaritve but by doing so manages to keep the focus on the work of Edward Relph what the main apsect is.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 Comments: It is written very clear and not going to extensive in detail.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 9 Comments: …
6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 8 Comments: …
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: 9 Comments: Good made sections which give a good structure to the whole written text.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 9 Comments: Good but another entry could have been made whereby his social life was mentioned.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 6 Comments: The categorie of persons is missing.
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: 1 Comments: Not available
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 1 Comments: Not available
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 9 Comments: It is a very clear story that is focused on the main point of the persons work.
Evaluated by
Paul van den Hogen--PaulHogen 15:48, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
