Talk:Institutions

From Geography

1. Relevance

Rating: 6

Comments: the concept 'institutions' is in this course only rarely. In addition, it is a concept which in many things apply.

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: it is easy to read and written well, but their are some spelling errors.

b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context.

Rating: 8

Comments: I thinks the explenation of the concept institutions is very clear. An example could clarify it more.

3. well-researched

a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;

Rating: 8

Comments: The APA guidelines is well respected.

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: 10

Comments: No critique

4. Broad in its coverage

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Rating: 7

Comments: Everything is clear when I read it. There arise no questions. An example could clarify it more.

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Rating: 9 Comments: Yes it does.

5. Neutral

Rating: 8

Comments: Yes, it is written neutral.

6. Stable

Rating: 6

Comments: I cannot judge this point very well. There are no contributors added. So, you cannot see how many times it has been changed.

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: 8

Comments: There is a good structure.

b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.

Rating: 5

Comments: The section contributors is missing.

c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?)

Rating: 5

Comments: The section contributors is missing.

8.Illustrated

a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Rating: 0

Comments: There are no illustrations.

b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: /

Comments: There are no illustrations

9. Length

Rating: 5

Comments: It is a short text