Difference between revisions of "Talk:The New Economic Market: Water"
|Line 66:||Line 66:|
--[[User:Marx|Marx]] 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Marx|Marx]] 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Revision as of 14:57, 14 January 2010
1. Basic criteria 1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High)
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) (Medium)
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (Medium)
2. Summary Comments for Author(s) 2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (Medium) ......................
2.2. Originality of the paper (High) ......................
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (Medium) ......................
2.4. Accurate information (Yes) .........................
2.5. Current information (Yes) .......................
2.6. Methodology (Yes) ...........................
2.7. Writing style is generally (Readable) ....................
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes) ....................
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) It depends....................
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes) Except the length..........
3. Written Comments for Author(s)
your article is very interesting but also contains a few foibles. I will focus on the foibles so do not feel got on the wrong side of you.
Starting with your abstract I think it is very extensive and informative. Your introduction comprises general information about globalisation and draws interest. It is also closely linked with the superior theme of the course and you point out its importance very well. But after the first break of your abstract you are using first person, what is badly uncommon in academic articles. The last two sentences of the second paragraph are statements which have to be attested by resources, especially the one starting with ‘Others believe...’ The following of your abstract is a very detailed overview of current problems in allocating water supply. Your sub-themes are approached but not discussed in a detailed way. Just the aim an abstract has to reach.
The main article is easy to read because you try to write in a coherent modality. It is well structured and logical successive. Your headline is felicitous, because it reflects your whole article in a few words. In my opinion the introductory part is very short, what causes a quick start in the main topic. You could point out the conjunction with globalisation more obviously. Also when you mention the cooperation of different institutions like UNO, WHO, etc. the way of cooperation does not become clear. What do they do? You write in the first paragraph ‘The goals were clear, but every organisation had different ideas and methods to reach them.’ What are the methods and ideas? This could be shown more detailed. In the third paragraph is written the conference of Dublin afforded an economical use of water. I actually did not get this point. Companies made money by selling water earlier than 1992, didn’t they? Do you mean mineral water or water from the main? Of course I share your opinion that water as a scarce resource will gain in importance, but I don’t agree with a demonization of its privatization. In history were several good which prices were regulated by governments. The water price could be regulated by scheduling a ceiling price. I also think dealing with water as an economic good does not have to end up in monopoly. Considering the market of different scarce goods like oil or gas, the water market can be organized in a similar way. In my opinion the problem is not privatization. The trade has to be controlled by governments and other institutions because of the emphasized importance of water. Certainly the conditions of free market economy are valid for water as well and the water market is linking up more and more through globalisation as you mention in the paragraph ‘The lack of economic competition’.
After that you write about water in plastic bottles. The beginning of this paragraph gives good information about the environmental compatibility of these bottles. But the conclusion of this paragraph was really difficult to understand. I didn’t get the point high quality water is taking pressure of politics. After a couple of minutes and several reading of the paragraph I was thinking you mean that the rich people apply pressure on politics and these people got high quality water so they won’t pressurize politics anymore. Did I get it right? Anyways you should be more precise and explain your opinion in a clear and detailed way. The subsequent paragraphs were essentially clear to me and the explanations on virtual water were really interesting.
Your conclusion is quite short and doesn’t contain a real ‘conclusion’ in my opinion. I am missing specific instructions for the participants. What exactly can be done to solve the water problem? Why do you think privatization is the wrong way? What is your personal opinion? These questions are crucial for a concluding end of the article.
All things considered your article contains certain spelling mistakes. In some cases you wrote ‘as’ instead of ‘is’ and ‘per example’ instead of ‘for example / e.g.’ to mention the most important ones. Your abstract is very long but the conclusion is quite short. Perhaps you got it the other way round. To get to the claimed amount of words you should explain your thoughts more detailed and extend your conclusion. I hope my remarks are helping you to improve your text.
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
--Marx 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Assessment from January 4th
Good text, focused and practical, relatively well structured with reasonable conclusions. I still have some remarks:
- if you are speaking about benefits of using the concept of “economic good” in relation to water, you should explain it little bit more. In economical theories, water is considered to be “Common-pool resource”, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource or “Common good” see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics) – so the difference should be pointed out. It is important as pure “economic good” does not reflect all aspect of water use, especially its non-excludable character.
- potable water management could be based on economical principles, but distribution of water probably not – here public policy should have its crucial importance
- I do not understand the “Virtual water” paragraph – it is related to water management, not to the economic market of water (should be reflected in your title and abstract?)
- please move the paragraphs from the Student theme page to the introduction of your article and write a real abstract (more brief). You could use parts of it, of course.
--Jana Dlouha 13:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)