 |
|
|
|
Sources: Evaluation
|
Last Evaluations on |
To simplify this website's visitors selection of books of interest for them, we evaluated every work in the library of the Arbeitskreis Hannoversche Militärgeschichte. Of course we will not evaluate publications of the Arbeitskreis Hannoversche Militärgeschichte! You will find the total evaluation of every single title in the column next to the last within the alphabtical lists of sources. We compiled and explain here the single evaluation criteria.
The total evaluation results from the evaluation of
single criteria. The single evaluations of Contents and
Science make 80% of the total evaluation, the remaining single
evaluations may, although they are of minor importance, push the total
evaluation up or down one step in single occasions. Naturally the weight
of the single evaluations for the total evaluation is reversed works, in
which the main contents are Maps or Illustrations. You
will find the single evaluation in the further
The evaluation as Standard Work is always used, if their is no alternative for the publication's subject. So it is possible, that a work is marked as standard work, although it is not really good, e.g. because the sources used are questionable or documented badly/not at all or because of current research having proved faulty parts of the work.
The evaluation as Coffee Table Book results mainly from the single evaluation "Science" (see below) and the overall appearance. The other single evaluations give hints to the further design of such a work.
We don't evaluate regulations and drill manuals, which have a high value as printed sources but can not be evaluated in a true sense. We also don't evaluate genealogical works, such as editions of church books or lists of losses, as well as comparable printed sources, e.g. Staatskalender. In single occasion hints to the design may be taken from the single evaluations, e.g. illustrations in drill manuals. Publications of the Arbeitskreis Hannoversche Militärgeschichte, which are of course not evaluated by us, are marked thus.
Contents
We evaluate, whether interesting facts and/or new research is presented. The value of the contents is evaluated differently, according to the kind of work. Memoirs have other values than nowadays monographs. So descriptions of the experiences during a campaign or a battle in an ego document are much more interesting from a social history standpoint than e.g. pagelong descriptions of the countryside or a sea voyage. As a secondary criteria of the contents we evaluate the "readability", which unfortunately leaves much to be desired in many scientific works. In single occasions a "highly scientific" or "traditionally idolising" style may cause a devaluation of one step. A revaluation because of good "readability" for works with otherwise uninteresting contents is impossible.
Science
Here we evaluate the scientific worth of a work. Is it research based on archival/printed sources or just based on the literature? We ask, whether current research is incorporated or whether the "same old story" is repeated again. Research based purely on the literature, the "traditional" description with the addition of some maps and many illustrations will inevitably lead to the total evaluation as Coffee Table Book (see above). The scientific worth of ego documents is evaluated by the "source value" of the work. We ask, whether the author decribes his own experiences (mostly) unimpressed by later publications, how much time elapsed between the events and the writing of the ego document or whether it is an edited version.
Maps
Here we evaluate the clarity and the details of maps within the work.
Visually attractive but hard to understand or undetailed maps can not
reach the evaluation "very good".
Illustrations
Here we evaluate first the reproduction quality of illustrations within
the work. We also ask, whether the illustrations serve as descriptive
aids to the contents or serve only as "decoration". Visually attractive
illustrations, which are well known from many other works, can not reach
the evaluation "very good".
© 2004 Michael-Andreas Tänzer |
||||||||||||||||||
nformationen, if this
is available for the respective works.
Standard Work
Coffee Table Book
Evaluation impossible or senseless
New acquisition
for the library / evaluation in progress
Very good / Very
interesting
Good / Interesting
Middle (average)
Bad /
Uninteresting
Very bad /
Very uninteresting