Talk:Media and culture in a globalized world

From VCSEwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1. Basic criteria

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low)

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low)

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low)

2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low)

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low)

2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No)

2.5. Current information (Yes/No)

2.6. Methodology (Yes/No)

2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor)

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No)

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No)

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No)

3. Written Comments for Author(s)

Dear Corinna,

It is a pleasure to read your article. It is interesting and also your style of writing makes big sense and because you are really able to express your thoughts very well, it is easy and amiable to deal with your article .

To not only congratulate you, I have some (but very little) comments for you to get the professional level you achieved a little higher hung! (Alright, you WERE very good!)

I will only comment the points I think I couldn’t score “high” or “yes” for hundred percent. But to relative this: most of the time I thought it is only a very little less.

Alright, here you are! The facts which really might interest you:

  • Coherence of the content with the title and thesis: You describe the facts of global media results very good, even though in a sometimes partial way. Maybe the divergent opinions could be stressed up better and be more underlined, so that the conclusion gains more emphasis. In the first sentence of your conclusion you made out that it is a matter of perception. Individually or homogenized taken perception? I think the link between the title and the content could be stronger tied.
  • Quality of the content from the methodological point of view: (see above) by having the connection not so precisely expressed, your good ideas and work is not shining as brightened as it could. That is not the best method… But the composition of the article itself is very good and as I think in a very good methodological mode.
  • Originality of the paper: I think I have already read very much divergent statements about this topic. It is an interesting theme, but neither new nor very much arousing. (but it is just a very personally position)
  • Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors: You summarize the definitions very well, but sometimes I miss the connections between different opinions from different authors. Sometimes one statement stands isolated, not very much commentated from you, or related to a divergent statement. It is very good clustered together having the highlight put on describing one side of the theme beneath another, but (really little) I miss the academical discourse a (very) little bit.

As Jana has remarked already the article does not handle so much about the Homogenization process, but the influencing aspect of global media in the process of cultural Homogenzation. But I think, if you just change the title into “The Globalization of media as part of Homogenization” you could reduce the work you should invest to your article to gain its last shine of brillance to a very suitable degree!

Thanks for this nice piece of work and enjoy your score level at the end!

Regards Julia

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

4.1. Publish as is with very very minor modifications

4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications which you can read above

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