Talk:Security – global safety or collective danger?

Dear Josef your review is very good and includes comments on almost all important points. Main remark from my side is maybe the overall organization of the text – normally the review starts with outline of the article, its main pros and cons, then might be included more thorough analysis, conducted paragraph by paragraph, and only then you write about some specific problems related to it. So also the critique comes at the end of the review which might be more supportive for the author than if you start with it. Also, if you have read Ilknur´s review of your text, it is extremely polite and nice.

It is good that you have realized all of the “mistakes” all of you could do in your in writing, the reviewed text is very good but I think that the “global security” is not too much related to the “individual perception of personal security” and so there are two themes which both could not have strong and interrelated conclusions (on such a small space).

--Jana Dlouha 08:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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 - Medium

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view - High

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view - 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 - High

2.4. Accurate information - Yes

2.5. Current information - Yes

2.6. Methodology - Yes

2.7. Writing style is generally - Poor

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised - No

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented - Yes

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) - Yes

3. Written Comments for Author(s)

Before I get to the content of the work, I would like to comment on your writing style first. Unfortunately, your main weakness seems to be your English in connection with inattention. By inattention I mean spelling mistakes and missing letters at the end of words. If I start reading your essay and find two mistakes in the first two sentences („quiet“ and „of“ replaced by „if“), it does not make your writing very attractive. It is nothing that cannot be eliminated, but it makes a bad impression and disturbs the reader. When talking about your English, I mean some stylistic mistakes and some bad habits of yours. The most frequent one is that you constantly replace relative pronouns by „what“. You can use e.g. „that“ or „which“. You can easily avoid this, just check your text more carefully or have it checked.

Considering the content, the topic is very current and well chosen. The international as well as domestic security has developed into a serious problem. It is not only about the security at the airports and high-risk spots but also many other places where protecting people becomes rather invasion of privacy. The CCTV cameras you have mentioned appear to be the most significant example. I was shocked and a bit scared, when I came to the police station in the small town I live in (just about 10 000 inhabitants) and saw over thirty screens showing various spots from all over the town. I had no idea that we are being watched so much! All in all, the topic has to be considered completely suitable. If I get over some fluency deficiencies I have already mentioned, your thoughts are quite clearly expressed and I have understood everything although not after the first reading.

The thing that would deserve to change is the organization of the essay. The title of your work is „Security – global safety or collective danger?“. But there is not a single word about it in the introduction, you just talk about globalisation in general. The first part should definitely introduce the problem, so it is advisable to shift some information about security from the body to the introduction. Slightly more information about security and less about globalisation might help. Also the conclusion should be changed. It is unnecessarily long and some parts are not very conclusive. The example considering CCTV cameras may be accounted one of the most interesting moments in the paper, but does not fit in the conclusion at all. Examples should be given in the body, at the end you bring it to a close. Dividing the text into more pieces with subheadings is a really good idea, it helps readers to orientate.

Another random remarks:

I could not find where you used a quotation from Jana Hybaskova.

I really like the paragraph called „The necessity of solutions on the state and international level“ and the citation from Reinicke. Also your comments on the camera systems are absolutely true.

4. General Recommendation for the article:

Might be accepted after minor modifications.

Josef Nový

--Kasparek 20:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá

Very thoughtful article, only minor remarks:

• you should break up some of the paragraphs (in case that they are focused on more than one topic) – otherwise it is not clear what you want to say;

• maybe you should specify what you mean by security – it was a surprise for me that you finished your article with security problems of individual. I supposed you will be more concerned with defense of some global values, interests or risks like environmental – which are subject of work of international military alliances. Personal security is more challenged by “work” of different mafias, crime and increased cooperation of groups that act beyond law in various spheres of human performance (including corruption etc.). It is also expressed by different competencies of policy and army (and also in the different ways they cooperate globally).

There might be a kind of solution either on the institutional or on process level. This (envisaged) solution should focus your article from the very beginning.

--Jana Dlouha 14:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessment from December 8th

The text is almost perfect, only small remarks. As it is, the reader has a problem to orientate himslef, to see what you want to say - you have to include some paragraphs and structure it more logically (globalization conditions - resulting security risks - role of states and international organizations - possible solutions on the state and international levels etc.). Also your citations in the text should fit with the list of references.

Your points are clear and cover interesting (not banal) aspects. Try to document some of them.

--Jana Dlouha 12:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)