831
edits
Talk:Sustainable development - Austria versus the Czech Republic: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Talk:Sustainable development - Austria versus the Czech Republic (view source)
Revision as of 14:21, 30 August 2017
, 14:21, 30 August 2017Admin moved page Talk:Group 2 to Talk:Sustainable development - Austria versus the Czech Republic
No edit summary |
m (Admin moved page Talk:Group 2 to Talk:Sustainable development - Austria versus the Czech Republic) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
* Is the idea of the Gleisdorf hotel really good enough? It hadn't really opened yet when we visited, so the jury is still out on whether it will be a success (although of course we suspect it will be) ;) | * Is the idea of the Gleisdorf hotel really good enough? It hadn't really opened yet when we visited, so the jury is still out on whether it will be a success (although of course we suspect it will be) ;) | ||
* | * Mining section still incomplete?!!!!!!!! | ||
* You could possibly mention other attempts to revive Eisenerz, like downsizing the town by demolishing old buildings and moving the population closer to the centre of town or to it sunny slope, the two-day heavy rock concert, or the performance art held in the quarry. What would be the possibility of copying these types of activities in the Czech Republic? | |||
* You could have used more examples of problems caused by mining in the Ore Mountains region and the solutions being applied to mined-out areas; what particular similarities were there with Eisenerz? | |||
* On what basis do you make the statement that it's "possible to observe a tendency to support sustainable development in the Czech Republic"? What's your objective evidence? | |||
* The conclusion doesn't relate too much to the rest of the article, and the statement about development focused only on mining doesn't align with the earlier paragraph about mining in the Ore Mountains, but then that section is incomplete...Conclusions should just summarise the arguments used earlier in the article and not introduce any new material. | |||
Okay, overall, it's not bad and you've obviously picked up some ideas from the trip (something about energy and solar panels would have been good also), and your English is understandable. Your conclusion is unfortunately very general. For future academic writing you have to make sure to use cogent and concise argumentation using objective evidence and facts. Obviously this was difficult on the field trip to Graz without adequate time and resources, but some more critical analysis of what was observed would have been good. | |||
Overall assessment: Good. | |||
Good luck with your future studies! | |||
Andrew | |||