445
edits
Talk:Integration and tolerance: Difference between revisions
Talk:Integration and tolerance (view source)
Revision as of 16:58, 15 January 2010
, 16:58, 15 January 2010no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Paper title: | Dear Ilknur, you have made a very good and polite analysis of the article (which itself could be understood as an attempt to countervail author’s own relatively negative but not too rational perception of the problem). You have made a very good job as you have raised interesting point how to make some of the statements (which generalize to a great extent) concrete and thus rational, then suitable for mutual dialogue. | ||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
==== Paper title: ==== | |||
Integration and tolerance | Integration and tolerance | ||
=== Reviewer´s assessment: === | === Reviewer´s assessment (Ilknur Yilmaz): === | ||
== 1. Basic criteria == | == 1. Basic criteria == | ||
| Line 76: | Line 80: | ||
4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor | 4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor | ||
--[[User:Ilknur Yilmaz|Ilknur Yilmaz]] 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Ilknur Yilmaz|Ilknur Yilmaz]] 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Assessment from January 4th == | == Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá== | ||
The text has not very good formally (structure and logic, citations etc.). And also your arguments are not well justified, you have written your oppinions and not discussed with opposing views. | The text has not very good formally (structure and logic, citations etc.). And also your arguments are not well justified, you have written your oppinions and not discussed with opposing views. | ||