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

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
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)
 
== 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)
 


Marenka Krasomil
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 09:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
== Review by Marenka Krasomil ==


1. Basic criteria
1. Basic criteria
Line 85: Line 71:
Greetings  
Greetings  
Marenka
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)
445

edits

Navigation menu