KULILOVÁ, P. Dynamická tenziometrie ve výzkumu biokoloidů [online]. Brno: Vysoké učení technické v Brně. Fakulta chemická. 2008.


Posudek vedoucího

Pekař, Miloslav

Diplomantka zodpovědně a svědomitě plnila zadané úkoly, s její prací jsem byl já i konzultant spokojen.

Dílčí hodnocení
Kritérium Známka Body Slovní hodnocení
Splnění požadavků zadání B
Studium literatury a její zpracování A
Využití poznatků z literatury B
Kvalita zpracování výsledků A
Interpretace výsledků, jejich diskuse B
Závěry práce a jejich formulace A
Využívání konzultací při řešení práce A
Celkový přístup k řešení úkolů A
Navrhovaná známka

Posudek oponenta

Mašek, David

I believe this diploma thesis is well done when referring to content. The topic of this thesis was covered in appropriate range and the division of thesis into chapters and parts is fulfilled logically. The results are summarized very well and the whole results and discussion part is easy to orient in. However I would recommend not splitting tables on two pages. It is better to have free space around the table and easier orientation, than saving space. I really appreciate the briefness, which I was at first afraid would not cover the whole topic. However author managed this part very well on quite a little space. Concerning the formal arrangement, I find some problems there. The use of literature and its citation is not done properly. Firstly the citation number 3 is missing in the text (even though in list of references it occurs). The list of references is not without mistakes either. Style of particular citations is accidental. Names of authors are written in capitals or with capital letter only, sometimes full names are written and sometimes abbreviations, sequence of data in reference is accidental as well (years, pages, volumes…). Sometimes page is written as "4p." sometimes "p. 316" or completely without abbreviation "p". This raises a question of abbreviation use. It is not possible to define abbreviations in text and then do not put them into the list of abbreviations. For example IFR or CT at page 34. Even using the abbreviation from the beginning of the text and then to define it after cca 10th use does not look good in scientific work. Example is using of abbreviation of SDS in abstract, introduction and text and defining it at page 11. Concerning the language used there is quite a lot of mistakes in the thesis. This could have been neglected, if they did not prevent text understanding. When writing an article for prestigious journal, I would recommend checking written text more carefully. I would like to pinpoint two quite common mistakes. Firstly verb "to control" is not an equivalent of Czech word "kontrolovat". Verb "to check" is mainly used for "kontrolovat". Second, more serious mistake is not sticking to the rules about word order in English sentence. There is always a predicate after the subject in declarative sentence. Reversed order is used in question. Phrasal verb splitting has its rules too and these cannot be broken. The conclusion contains mistakes which make some parts of it quite unclear so it is difficult for reader to understand properly. Concerning questions, I would like to ask the author to try to explain the conclusion better. I believe the above mentioned mistakes were mainly caused by language barrier and the work can be approved. I recommend this thesis with grade C.

Dílčí hodnocení
Kritérium Známka Body Slovní hodnocení
Splnění požadavků zadání A
Logické členění práce A
Kvalita zpracování výsledků B
Interpretace výsledků, jejich diskuse A
Využití literatury a její citace E
Úroveň jazykového zpracování D
Formální úroveň práce – celkový dojem A
Závěry práce a jejich formulace C
Navrhovaná známka

eVSKP id 2718