Talk:Humanism
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: 7 Comments: …
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6 Comments: Some things could be more explained and explained 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: …
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: 9 Comments: The citations are very well published.
4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 8 Comments: …
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 7 Comments: Sometimes its focus on humanism is taken away by unneccessary going in detail of side issues.
5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 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: 6 Comments: Is missing.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6 Comments: This strcuture is in my opinion lacking. With this term different headings could have been made. The category 'definition' would be suitable and a category with the sort of background information would fit properly.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 5 Comments: With categorising it with its own name I think the essence of categorizing hasn't been met. Adding another categorie such as philosophy or human science.
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: None available
b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 1 Comments: None available
9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 Comments: Its shows in a decent way the main topic, but I think some details weren't directly necessary while others were missing.
Evaluated by
Paul van den Hogen--PaulHogen 13:48, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
