Talk:Humanistic Geography

From Geography

Revision as of 21:56, 16 October 2012 by LarsHaverkort (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

1. Relevance: 10. This page is extremely relevant for this course in the fact that 'Humanistic geography' was one of the first streams in which the own human thought and his subjectivity was given a main role.

2. Well-written: 7. The page is well-written. The whole page is easily understandable and the English used is of a good level.

3. well-researched: 2. The page provides references to some researchers, but it does not provide a list of the used literature at the bottom of the page. When someone refers in the text to "(Anne Buttimer, 1979)", it would be easy to know what book/research/article Anne Buttimer wrote in 1979. So it provides in-line citations, but does not give a reference-list at the end.

4. Broad in its coverage: 4. It addresses especially the core of the Humanistic Geography, but it forgets some important aspects which would make the page is a lot clearer. For instance, the fact that the approach gives a central and active role to human awareness, agency, consciousness and creativity is mentioned, but not what this means.

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: …… (0-10) Comments: … b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: …… (0-10) Comments: …

5. Neutral: 10. There are no judgments given on the page about the Humanistic Geography. The humanistic geography ofcourse itself is not neutral in relation to the 'behavioural geography', but that is something which has to be mentioned. So the page itself is neutral, the humanistic geography itself is not.

6. Stable: 10. This page is very stable. It has been created and then only changed once.

7. Well-structured: 4. The page is not really structured. There is not a lead which introduces the subject and there is no 'contents'-part which gives an overview of the topics that are spoken about. This is also the result of the fact that the page is too small to divide it in different sub-parts.

8. Illustrated: no rating. There are no illustrations on this page, so no rating can be given.

9. Length: 6. The length of the page is very minimal. As a result it does not go into unnecessary detail, but it also does not go in depth. This is a loss, because the Humanistic Geography is a subject on which more can be said.

Personal tools