Talk:Theory of place

From Geography

Revision as of 13:55, 26 October 2012 by RosalieKoen (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Evaluation theory of place

1. Relevance: It is relevant for this course.

Rating: 8(0-10)

Comments: It helps to understand that all our actions are in relation to place and time


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: 6 (0-10)

Comments: looks disheveled. sometimes sentences don't fit in relation to each other, like beginning a sentence with 'Because' while the previous sentence already explained something by using 'so'. Some grammar faults.

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

Rating: 7 (0-10)

Comments: main points are mentioned


3. well-researched: Factually accurate and verifiable: a) it provides references to all sources of information following the APA guidelines;

Rating: 8 (0-10)

Comments: several references, following APA

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 (0-10)

Comments: reliable sources, no controversial statements, no quotations.


4. Broad in its coverage: a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Rating: 7 (0-10)

Comments: main aspects are mentioned, but the article is not very profound.

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

Rating: 8 (0-10)

Comments: -


5. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Rating: 8 (0-10)

Comments: -


6. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Rating: 7(0-10)

Comments: structure does not change significantly


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: 5 (0-10)

Comments: no summarizing topic

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

Rating: 6 (0-10)

Comments: no section heading, not pleasant when reading

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

Rating: - (0-10)

Comments: -


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: - (0-10)

Comments: no illustrations

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

Rating: - (0-10)

Comments: -


9. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Rating: 7 (0-10)

Comments: Not too short, but the main points summed up could be explained more



Evaluated by Rosalie Koen on 26 October 2012.

Personal tools