Talk:Niklas Luhmann

From Geography

Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: The article is about Luhmann, who has had some important contributions to science as a whole, but less importantly to geography. His work is mainly about sociology, but ofcourse in human geography sociology is imporant so these theories are still relevant.

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 (0-10) Comments: The text looks professionaly written, not to short and not to long. I didn't find any spelling failures. b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: The text clarifies the main work of Luhmann, but not enough why these theories are relevant for our field of geography.

3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines; Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: Sources are well mentioned but there are only used 2 sources for the text. APA guidelines are used well. 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 (0-10) Comments: in-line citations are used and they are from scientific sources. APA guidelines used well.

4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: Main ideas of Luhmann are being told, it's hard to tell them in a short text because he wrote about 70 books. b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: In my opinion to much info is given about his life and to less about why his work is important to our field.

5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Facts are being told neutrally, but the authors choose to tell something about parts of Luhmann's work. Other work he wrote is not being told, so selectively chosen work is being told. But again it is very hard to choose which work is most important for this wiki.

6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Rating: 6 (0-10) Comments: It has changed often, a total of 6 authors have worked on the article which could mean it wasn't very good at the first point.

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 (0-10) Comments: No summary has been given at the top of the text, the different sections are though well presented. b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: Idem dito. c) categories: is the entry categorized in a correct way? (Which categories are missing?) Rating: 9 (0-10) Comments: It it categorized to persons which is good.

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: 8 (0-10) Comments: Foto of Luhmann is given including the source. b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Rating: 8 (0-10) Comments: It is always good to have an idea of how the person looks like, in my opinion. 9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style. Rating: 7 (0-10) Comments: It quite long but still doesn't tell exactly why this person is relevant for our study.