View source for Talk:Government & international organizations

{| border=1
 | '''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 properly: text is based on extensive list of references properly cited; statements are documented by appropriate citations and so essential arguments are based on reliable resources found specifically for this particular research; real data presented || || || ||
 |-
 | '''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 || || || ||          
 |-
 | '''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 || || || ||               
 |-
 | '''Focus''' || '''strong conclusions''': values behind the topic are clear; main problems identified and addressed; through balanced structure and critical argumentation clear conclusions are derived || || || ||            
 |-
 | '''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, and some gradation could be observed || || || ||           
 |-
 | '''Critical approach''' || '''balanced text''': problems presented from diverse perspectives but based on objective data and findings|| || || ||          
 |-
 | '''Commitment ''' || '''ethics (writing) &length (text)''': writing process was constructive, held in dialogue and respect to the partners; time spent on writing above average || || || ||            
 |-
 | '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' || '''initiative in researching topic''': independent work with resources, new perspectives opened || || || ||            
 |-
 | '''Formal features ''' || respecting '''academic genre''': proper structure - abstract, key words, introduction (definition of the terms) and conlusion, well-defined paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, sources properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format respected || || || ||              
 |-
 | '''Reaction on the peer review ''' || '''reviewer’s comments respected''' - there was reaction on the comments by the teacher || || || ||                    
 |-
 | '''Total (points)''' || || || || '''100''' ||              

|}

--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 13:47, 26 January 2012 (CET)
Comments before finalizing:

The text itself develops in terms of providing overall picture - in the beginning, you clarify the terms (which is good for general understanding), and present most important data or facts. The "case study" of the Wassa West District is a very good option - you could illustrate general statements made before by real situation. You perhaps could be more concrete and critical, you often remain on quite general level, but all the problems are visible, so it is OK. You have studied lot of resources to come to your conclusions!

The structure and logic of the text is also good, and I have onlyone small remark: you do not mention something like democratic decission making process too much. So, when you state that ". The local government also should cooperate in its effort with other stakeholders so as:...", you might also mention representatives of local NGOs, or civic society as such etc. Now, it looks like everything could be arranged "top down".
I do not see any "minor changes" that need to be done immediately, so, congratulations again!

--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 13:47, 26 January 2012 (CET)