Talk:Function system

From Geography

Latest revision as of 14:52, 24 October 2012

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 8(0-10) Comments: Function systems are part of the study material of the 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: 3(0-10) Comments: Spellingmistakes are prevalent. The standard is not professional and it seems as if little time was put into the making of the wiki. By spending more time on this wiki, spelling mistakes could have been prevented.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: Although concise, the major facts and details of the function system are covered.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 3 (0-10) Comments: There are references in the text and in the list of literature. These references are, however, not according to APA guidelines.

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: 0 (0-10) Comments: The second paragraph seems to contain a citation, although it is not labelled as a citation. The phrase is followed by a reference, but it is in fact a literal citation from the text by Luhmann. It should have been labelled as a citation.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The main aspects of the topic are adressed.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: The text is concise and clear cut and does not go into unnecessary detail.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 7(0-10) Comments: The viewpoint is 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: 10 (0-10) Comments: The text was constructed by one person and is very 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: There is a concise lead section, but it could have been longer.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: A hierarchy can be observed. By spending a little more time on it, it could have been done better.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Catergories ar correct.

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: 9(0-10) Comments: It is very concise and does not go into unnecessary detail.