831
edits
Talk:Loss of biodiversity - caused and solved by globalisation?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Talk:Loss of biodiversity - caused and solved by globalisation? (view source)
Revision as of 08:42, 31 August 2017
, 08:42, 31 August 2017Admin moved page Talk:Loss of Biodiversity - caused and solved by Globalization? to Talk:Loss of biodiversity - caused and solved by globalisation?
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (Admin moved page Talk:Loss of Biodiversity - caused and solved by Globalization? to Talk:Loss of biodiversity - caused and solved by globalisation?) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Peer-Review= | OK, Svea, very good points! You are right, there should be personal dimension and viewpoint present in the article. Some of the authors have written more facts technical information etc. in their articles – supposing that thus they provide very neutral (“objective”) position. But we cannot use ONLY this optics as the decision based on hard sciences should be not only reasoned but also GOOD (from the viewpoint of different discourse – ethical one – that means sometimes not having most efficient or accountable reason/solution). | ||
But on the other hand, in relation to biodiversity there are so many banal arguments already present everywhere that it if we try to argue this way or derive some very general conclusions, it should be very difficult to concentrate on something with analytic value in a short article. | |||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 15:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
=Peer-Review - Svea Marie Wehling= | |||
Paper title: Loss of Biodiversity- caused and solved by Globalization? | Paper title: Loss of Biodiversity- caused and solved by Globalization? | ||
==1. Basic criteria== | ==1. Basic criteria== | ||
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme | 1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme '''high - medium''' | ||
1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis | 1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis '''high''' | ||
1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below | 1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below)'''high - medium''' | ||
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below | 1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) '''high''' | ||
==2. Summary Comments for Author(s)== | ==2. Summary Comments for Author(s)== | ||
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice | 2.1. Contribution to theory or practice '''medium''' | ||
2.2. Originality of the paper | 2.2. Originality of the paper '''high''' | ||
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors | 2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors '''very high''' | ||
2.4. Accurate information | 2.4. Accurate information '''Yes''' | ||
2.5. Current information | 2.5. Current information '''Yes''' | ||
2.6. Methodology | 2.6. Methodology '''Yes''' | ||
2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) '''Excellent''' | 2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) '''Excellent''' | ||
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised | 2.7.1. Paper is logically organised '''Yes''' (see below) | ||
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented | 2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented '''Yes''' (see below) | ||
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) '''Yes''' | 2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) '''Yes''' | ||
| Line 57: | Line 62: | ||
--[[User:Wehling|Wehling]] 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Wehling|Wehling]] 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Assessment from January 4th == | == Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá== | ||
Remarks: | Remarks: | ||
| Line 79: | Line 84: | ||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
== ISPoS program - Quality rating - Jan Jelínek == | |||
Dear Jule, | |||
I would like to vote on the quality of your essay. We write these ratings of quality as a part of Interdisciplinary Study Program on Sustainability and Globalisation. | |||
You write very perspicuously about the issue that can be difficult to grasp. Biodiversity and the problems associated with it are often described a very complicated way as they are from a certain view intricate and interdisciplinary. While reading your essay, I especially liked that your text is well-arranged and readable nevertheless still active professionally. | |||
You created a well written introduction to your work, which may help the uninitiated reader with orientation in globalisation and biodiversity issues. Particularly the part "Value" under the section "Biodiversity in general" I found considerable for better understanding of this topic. Perhaps in the section "Loss of Biodiversity" could be more accurate information however I feel this section to be sufficient. Following parts of your essay are in accordance with the overall structure and also well-written. I liked your conclusion where you summarized the previous text and came up with solutions which people could follow. | |||
The issue you wrote about is intriguing nevertheless can be difficult to accurately describe. I feel that you coped very well with these difficulties in your essay and I agree with Svea - your writing style is excellent. | |||
Best regards, | |||
Jan | |||