 Hello. This little memo is to just review some points for rating glossary terms. The glossary term should be a definition of a fundamental term, principle, a concept, a rule, an element, a standard, a test, even a policy position. It should be highly accurate, thorough, and complete. That doesn't mean that it's trying to write a dissertation on the particular concept just that the definition is complete. It should include a reference to either a relevant case, a hypothetical, an example, an illustration, or some type of clarification that would help a person with their understanding. Finally, it must include the location in the reading. If in reviewing the questions you should go to the reading, the reference place, and look up the reading to be sure that the definition is accurate. You can't just say it sounds accurate. You have to actually know that it's accurate, and if you have any kind of sense that it may be an inaccurate in some way, then you need to look it up. In this case, that's the reason why the page number in the reference is so important. So the rating is 5 for well-written, which means it has all of the parts, and it's accurate, and it has all the appropriate elements. It's well-written, but it may be missing a few elements. It may not have, for instance, a reference to a legal case or a hypothetical. The definition needs some improvement, means that it's not accurate or thorough or complete in some component, but the other parts are present. That has a case, it has the reference number. So three is missing all of the elements are present. Two is some improvement and it's missing a few elements. One is it needs substantial improvement. It's inaccurate, not very thorough, and not very complete. One can also mean that it's not formatted correctly, that it includes no reference number or page number. That's even if it appears on its face to be very accurate, very thorough and incomplete. Without a reference or page number, there's no way for it to be checked out. And then zero is reversed or for people who didn't post a glossary term at all. So the minimum that a person can get if they posted a term is a one and the maximum is a five. You should point out how the entry could be improved. You're reviewing and rating all of the definitions. You're not required to comment on all of them or even most of them, but you should comment on any ones you give a one or two. You should particularly tell people how. So let's take a look at a few. This definition doesn't have a reference page, so it's no way to judge whether or not it's accurate or not. So it's going to get a one just because of that. Although if you have some, if you're reading this, you feel like there's some things from your own knowledge that could make it better. You should feel free to do that. Allocating Betterment. Here's a problem with this definition. It assumes a knowledge of what betterment is. And so it might be a better definition if it included a short sentence about what betterment is and then go into the definition of how to allocate it. It includes an example and then I'm not critiquing these for accuracy or quality at all. I'm just looking to give you some idea how to look at them. It doesn't include a reference number, so you would need, that would need, you would need to, it would be rated down for that. Here's the question of betterment. I, without reading thoroughly, it seems to me that this may include too much information. You're trying to get a concise definition without going into the whole explanation of what it is. And so it might be better if the person just included the first two sentences are the definition and then they had an example in what betterment might include. This, on the other hand, burden of proof may not have enough information. Just looking at it, it doesn't have an example. It doesn't have a hypothetical. It use, and so the person, this definition may be incomplete. It doesn't have a reference number. This, here's an example of a definition that includes the reference in terms of its location. And I like, because we're having problems with which addition it came from, I like the fact that they included the addition, addition number that this came from. So this is from place in the chain of distribution. And it has an example, and it has in this case also a case citation. So the key to looking at these glossary terms is really going to be you going back and reviewing the definitions in the reading and assuring that the glossary terms are defined correctly. And completely.