View source for Talk:Challenges to Energy Security - Is a demonization of conventional energy production under current global trends beneficial?

Hello, Lina, well done review! You are right, the article is somehow without perspective (at least positive). We might need such articles (these arguments might be true) but at the same moment, if you have your own impetus to work for change, you should probably approach the theme differently.

--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
=== Reviewer´s assessment: ===

== 1. Basic criteria ==

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) High

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) Medium

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) Medium

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) High

== 2. Summary Comments for Author(s) ==

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) High

2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) Medium

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) Medium

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) Yes (you are leaving out "accurate" downturns of solar power though, see below)

2.5. Current information (Yes/No) Yes

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) Yes

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) Excellent-Readable

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) Yes

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) Yes

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No)Yes

== 3. Written Comments for Author(s) ==

First of all in my opinion, it is a very interesting article. I would like to read more about it, but I guess the time and the limited number of words did not allow it.

When I started reading the text, in the beginning I was kind of confused that there was the same text in the abstract as well as in the introduction. Maybe in the abstract it would make more sense to talk about the whole text without giving any facts, but also give some insights of the article including some points of you conclusion. That way it makes the reader curious of the following article.

The introduction is very nice though. It is a common sense introduction, it does not give to many information but also names some facts. A good entering in your article.

After reading the article I had the feeling that there are named very bad facts. Even the facts are true it seemed like the text is very negative written and it seemed like there won‘t be a way out of the situation right now. In some points I would like to read about some alternative ideas. Even if Greenpeace says there won‘t be a way out right now or that it will take time to change the situation I would like to read if they have ideas for right now. Even if the climate situation is very bad and very complicated, the text sometimes seems like we  just need to wait to really see changes. Probably it is just true! This is just my impression.

I also would like to get some more facts why the changes and the situation is such a complicated one. Maybe it is possible to get some more explanatory notes about it.

Even if I and probably most of the students now the abbreviations it would be great to get a short explanation about them (for example OECD).

At the point where you talk about: „Germany has the second largest reserves of lignite coal {…}.“ it would be nice to get a comparison to one / some other countries.

And the end in my opinion your conclusion is very good. Even it is a short ending is makes sense. And still here again, in my mind it would be nice to hear some of your own ideas how to change the today‘s climate politics / situation on our world.

It is a very good article and my ideas of changes are just little ones!

Best regards, Lina.

== 4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option): ==

4.1. Publish as is

'''4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications'''

4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications

4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):

4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course

4.4.2. Technically deficient

4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor

Lina Samoske, January 14th

== Assessment from January 4th ==
Remarks:

Henning, it is much better than the first version but not very changed since the previous one ;-). On the other hand, you have very extensive list of references and you work with them in a reasonable way. From the formal point of view you have to clarify the structure little bit (titles in the new version helped to a certain extent). From my point of view, it is not very much clear what you want to say in relation to the globalisation process and it would be better to express it very explicitly: E.g.: “Globalisation is global competition; the role of energy is crucial in it; technology used for power plants matters from environmental point of view (environment is a global phenomenon and should not be subject of competition but agreement). Here are advantages of certain technologies, and here are restrictions (in relation to accessibility, security AND environmental performance). This is future prospect.”

The sentence “…spending more resources on innovations and refinements of existing and new technologies of power generation than any solar panel in Germany ever will.” convicts that you are all the time arguing with very fashionable (and sometimes not justifiable) trends of solar energy. It’s OK that you do not like them but you have to be very rational in your argumentation. And you still do not provide any reasonable argument against renewables – although there are plenty of them (low security, high price and even “ecological footprint” of their production etc.)

--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 14:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

== Assessment from December 8th ==
Almost perfect, concerning the quality of your text see discussion to the page. You have to be more clear about what you want to say, not about what you do not want to hear :-)

the text is well argued (very nice list of references and the way you cite your sources!)

You could improve the overall logic - include dome titles and also do not hide your most important points! The main problem is the environmental risk related to the energy production, also security of energy supply. So, discuss it very briefly - pros and cons (of specific energy production technology) which could be weighted rationally after all.

You have already written some conclusion, but please refine them together with the text! Are you looking for lower risk, raise of efficiency, compromise solution or what?

--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)