Writer, Article: 0-99

  • Ben, Getting started with peercoin on mac os x: 95 total (30, 30, 9, 10, 8, 8). Good article. Recommend adding images to Devtome and link from there in case Dropbox account changes. Title not included on page.
  • Develcuy, Howto debug lua extensions with gdb: 62 total (20, 15, 7, 10, 10, 0). Typo in heading. Suggest adding references in footnotes. No images.
  • Devtome_writer, Solar energy: 45 total (15, 0, 10, 10, 10, 0). The article is very narrow in addressing the subject, but does briefly define two terms. No images, no references. Contradictory assertions: “the true cost…is a difficult proposition at best” and “Essentially everyone…would save money.”
  • Ecafe, Transcendent meditation and psychic phenomena: 43 total (15, 0, 8, 10, 10, 0). Odd use of TM without the -al ending is somewhat distracting. The fourth paragraph seems to flip between the two uses. No explanation is offered. The use of external references may have helped avoid this. An “archetype” is not an entity, it is the story within which an entity is prefigured. Additionally, if you use Wiki to define a term, please include the reference (e.g., intuition).
  • Estera, Mythbusting: 68 total (25, 20, 8, 10, 5, 0). Good introductory paragraph. Paragraphs could be shorter with additional headers to describe content and to aid in keeping the Wiki readability format. Instead of Work Cited, I recommend using the footnote convention. Review Wiki writing styles with high ratings to see good examples. I also recommend a page URL reflecting the use of the full title instead of just “Mythbusting” to avoid future conflicts in content: “mythbusting_breakfast_is_the_most_important_meal” or something similar.
  • Jeffusher, Intermittent fasting: 55 total (25, 0, 10, 10, 10, 0). Nice introduction. Well defined. No images, no references.
  • Moviemaven, Hitchcock coward and the romantic comedy: 78 total (25, 25, 8, 10, 10, 0). Good. Remember to indent two spaces on quotations to give it a formatted offset. Hyperlink your references internally and externally.
  • Pepegom, Bond (finance): 60 total (25, 5, 10, 10, 10, 0). Confusing line: First sentence, last paragraph. No images, no references, but a good introduction. Reminder: References are worth up to 30 points for non-fiction (dependent on reviewer and content, but potentially a huge difference)!
  • Rhurley, Changing times and the zeitgeist movement: 36 total (15, 1, 5, 10, 5, 0). Pandering. Excessive use of generalizations in what appears to be a scripted commercial for a website. Ironic: Writing an article wishing for a society that rewards people for ideas and cooperation on a website dedicated to ethical currency and creativity regardless of age, sex or identity. A good non-fiction Wiki writer will use references for the arguments they make in their article, not just a website and video that supports a promotion piece.
  • Smeagol, Coinbase: 59 total (15, 5, 10, 10, 10, 9). References to the figures given would be helpful. There isn't much content, so without references, rating this article higher is especially difficult. Images are appropriate. This is not like other articles written by the same author. Usually references and content are more developed.
  • Vilmanoella, Influences on the second wave of feminism: 48 total (20, 5, 8, 10, 5, 0). Decent article, but references (or even proof of opposing arguments) would be highly beneficial since the topic is/could be controversial in its approach. For example, the author does not mention the ethically-challenged contribution of Margaret Sanger's eugenics to birth control (and to the second wave of feminism) and misidentifies the demographic to which birth control was first introduced. The lack of opposing viewpoints diminishes the article's force, in my opinion. It would be helpful to also note the “first wave of feminism” as part of the introduction to provide context, but I'm still giving the article 20 points for content. No images, no references.
  • Wekkel, What does dogecoin teach us: 48 total (10, 15, 3, 10, 10, 0). Arguably no original content in this article other than the contradictory claim that Dogecoin is a hypecoin but somehow it still manages “to illustrate that is no need for a centrally controlled currency” and that Dogecoin proves that it makes “static and centrally governed institutions more and more obsolete.” No images. Poorly written. Example: “I think DogeCoin learns us an important lesson” and “So much DOGE, many fun, much profit.”

My rating scheme is based on this information:1)

Raters can rate authors how they choose, this is the just one way to rate an author. Roughly half weight is given to content, and half to presentation.

  • The number of points for each aspect for non fiction follows:
  1. 30 for the content, how interesting or useful the article is.
  2. 30 for links and references
  3. 10 for grammar and readability
  4. 10 for spelling
  5. 10 for formatting
  6. 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image
  • For fiction:
  1. 60 for the content, how interesting or original the book is.
  2. 10 for grammar and readability
  3. 10 for spelling
  4. 10 for formatting
  5. 9 for images, 0 for no images, 5 for one adequate image, 9 for more than one image or for one perfectly suited image

Commerce | Devtome

QR Code
QR Code rating_eeharris_35 (generated for current page)