Talk:National laws for global capital markets - A contradiction?: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:National laws for global capital markets - A contradiction? (view source)

Revision as of 11:52, 16 January 2010

566 bytes added ,  11:52, 16 January 2010
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Assessment from January 4th ==
Hello Marenka, your review if very good, of course, it was easier for you as I have published my remarks already. But you are right, all these terms and features should be described. The author should be aware of the readers´ audience to whom he is speaking and should use the language they are familiar with. If he speaks to the expert community (which is not too much our case) he should follow customary practice in the field.
Remarks:
 
Stefan, your article has a good main idea (“research question”) and according to the abstract should be addressing very important topic. The main problem with it is that on such a restricted space the problems are only briefly outlined and not tackled in depth. Some of the problems you are not analyzing at all, e.g. “Actual existing institutions’ structures are inappropriate to fulfill this task.” is a very strong statement and not explained at all! You should at least figure out main institutions in the area under observation and say why they failed in their mission – or not mention this aspect at all. (You could read Economic Globalization and Institutions of Global Governance from the Part 4 for that).
 
I still consider your idea (the baasis of your text) good, but you have payed not sufficient attention to write it thoroughly (including some formal features).


--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 09:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 
== Review by Marenka Krasomil ==
== Assessment from December 8th ==
Your topic deserves the whole book and it is difficult to explain everything on a restricted space. So, you often start argumentation but do not explain the problem in depth - it is out of context then. Concentrate on smaller issues with clear conclusions.
 
Your article would deserve more extensive introduction describing problems and possibly benefits of global markets (you have deleted the previous intro?).
 
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


1. Basic criteria
1. Basic criteria
Line 67: Line 56:
First of all I am very sorry that I did not posted my comments earlier, I hope you still have enough time to read my comments and improve your text.
First of all I am very sorry that I did not posted my comments earlier, I hope you still have enough time to read my comments and improve your text.


I really like your theme, I think it is very current topic in respect to the financial crisis and in regards to globalisation. Though I had some difficulties to understand every thing, you could express some parts more in detail, even if I know that it is a very wide filed and the seminar just offers a small access.
I really like your theme, I think it is a very current topic in respect to the financial crisis and in regards to globalisation. Though I had some difficulties to understand every thing, you could express some parts more in detail, even if I know that it is a very wide filed and the seminar just offers a small access.


Starting with your first text, there you give a short and brief introduction of your theme. You describe the changes in financial markets linked to the upcoming connection of globalisation and capital markets. This Introduction gives a good overview.
Starting with your first text, there you give a short and brief introduction of your theme. You describe the changes in financial markets linked to the upcoming connection of globalisation and capital markets. This Introduction gives a good overview.
Line 79: Line 68:


In your whole text you use technical terms that are necessary though your writing stile readable that makes it easier to understand the topic with its professional demand.
In your whole text you use technical terms that are necessary though your writing stile readable that makes it easier to understand the topic with its professional demand.
Greetings
Marenka
== Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá==
Remarks:
Stefan, your article has a good main idea (“research question”) and according to the abstract should be addressing very important topic. The main problem with it is that on such a restricted space the problems are only briefly outlined and not tackled in depth. Some of the problems you are not analyzing at all, e.g. “Actual existing institutions’ structures are inappropriate to fulfill this task.” is a very strong statement and not explained at all! You should at least figure out main institutions in the area under observation and say why they failed in their mission – or not mention this aspect at all. (You could read Economic Globalization and Institutions of Global Governance from the Part 4 for that).
I still consider your idea (the baasis of your text) good, but you have payed not sufficient attention to write it thoroughly (including some formal features).
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
== Assessment from December 8th ==
Your topic deserves the whole book and it is difficult to explain everything on a restricted space. So, you often start argumentation but do not explain the problem in depth - it is out of context then. Concentrate on smaller issues with clear conclusions.
Your article would deserve more extensive introduction describing problems and possibly benefits of global markets (you have deleted the previous intro?).
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Jana Dlouha
445

edits

Retrieved from "https://vcsewiki.czp.cuni.cz/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1170...1191"

Navigation menu