| Criteria/levels of fulfillment | max points: 10 | max points: 5 | points: 0 | Assessment | |
| Content - quality of resources & well-founded argumentation: | the authors have worked with literature relatively well: real data presented, text is based on extensive list of references but they are not always cited in the text and so statements are not documented by appropriate citations; and so it is not visible whether the essential arguments are based on reliable resources found specifically for this particular research | 5 | |||
| Context | wide context & core of the problem identified: problems understood in their inter-relationships, specific information fits into the whole picture; perceived from different perspectives but supports definite conlusions | 10 | |||
| Practical relevance | combines general principles & driving forces and global features with practical consequences and local context: information about various aspects of the mining industry supports practical conclusions. Some negatives - conclusions are rather general statements, not specified. | 8 | |||
| Focus | strong conclusions: values behind the topic are clear; main problems identified and addressed; balanced structure and critical argumentation supports conclusions | 10 | |||
| Clarity | logical structure of the text: ideas are clear, (every) paragraph declares a separate point; detail adds to the main idea, elements are in the right place. Text is balanced, proper lenght of each part. | 10 | |||
| Critical approach | balanced text: problems presented from diverse perspectives, conflicts discussed | 10 | |||
| Commitment | ethics (writing) &length (text): writing process was constructive, held in extensive dialogue and respect to the partners; time spent on writing above average | 10 | |||
| Individual input & risk-taking | initiative in researching topic: independent work with resources, new perspectives opened | 10 | |||
| Formal features | respecting academic genre: proper structure - introduction, discussion of teh issue and conlusion, well-defined paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, sources properly cited in the list of references but not in the text; citation format respected | 7 | |||
| Reaction on the peer review | reviewer’s comments respected - there was reaction on the comments by the teacher | 10 | |||
| Total (points) | 90 |
--Jana Dlouha 05:29, 27 January 2012 (CET)
Comments before finalizing:
n general, it is well written, and the overall structure and logic is quite perfect. You raise many important points, and have an extensive list of resources. Small weakness is that you do not cite them in the text, it is quite needed, as everybody should know where are the data from.
One paragraph is not consistent (you should either leave the CSR out or rather somehow introduce the concept and its usage). But the text is focused and conclusion (SD perspective) quite strong! Of course, it's a pitty we do not see how the system is working in reality, e.g. how efficient is control and measures taken in case environmentall standards are not met.
--Jana Dlouha 13:47, 12 January 2012 (CET)