Talk:The New Economic Market: Water: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Dear Stefan, this is an excellent review and you have gone deeply in the theme you are analyzing. You also have a clear idea how the article should be written to provide not only good background information, but also develop a reasonable conclusion based on it – which should be either focused on a specific practical solution and respect the context of national and international policies in the field, economical principles etc. Well done!
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
== Review by Stefan Marx ==
1. Basic criteria  
1. Basic criteria  
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High)  
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High)  
Line 8: Line 14:
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal 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. Summary Comments for Author(s)
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (Medium) ......................  
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (Medium) ......................  


Line 45: Line 52:
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.
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.


Best regards
Best regards Stefan
 
Stefan
 


4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):  
4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):  
Line 66: Line 70:


--[[User:Marx|Marx]] 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
--[[User:Marx|Marx]] 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
== Assessment from January 4th ==
Jana Dlouhá
Remarks:
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.
== Assessment from December 8th ==
Your text is good, even if I doubt about the content to a certain extent (quality of drinking water should be good for everyone, not only for rich?). You might mention some risks of water privatization and maybe list benefits more transparently.
See more at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5307&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Best
Jana
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 13:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Navigation menu