Talk:Idealism
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: 8 Comments: Well written.
b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 8 Comments: …
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: The main topic is adressed and is broad in its coverage.
b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 8 Comments: …
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: 7 Comments: Looking at the different sections, a remark has to be made on the lack of different sections. At least three or four sections could have been made what it would made it look more structured.
b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 6 Comments: More structure has to be made: More sections. 'Definition' entry is missing, the two sorts of idealism could have had an own entry in my opinion and an entry which shows which persons have worked with idealism.
c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 1 Comments: Not available.
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: Some topics could have been more adressed and-or summarized.
Evaluated by
Paul van den Hogen--PaulHogen 15:09, 26 October 2012 (CEST)
