http://13.50.150.85/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=S122906 2026-07-14T20:44:12Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.3 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=File:Picture10.jpg&diff=57390 2018-02-26T17:15:04Z

<p>S122906: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Lean_Project_Management_tools&diff=49684 2018-02-16T20:34:51Z

<p>S122906: /* Abstract Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below<br /> <br /> Language; Ok, minor gramar mistakes<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> The abstract mentions Lean tools, how many tools you will compare?, the content table list 3 tools, and then text says that two tools will be compared.<br /> <br /> There are many lean tools, why and how you decide the tools to compare, try to find references that classify this tools.<br /> <br /> You have a typo with the word &quot;Murda&quot; is MUDA, do not forget to add the definition of Muda and the importance of this word in the article.<br /> <br /> Six sigma is an statistical tool/technique developed by motorola for manufacturing processes focused to reduce defects, why is considered a lean tool?, try find a reference that support this.<br /> <br /> Since Lean approaches are related with different management styles from the recommended literature, please find more relevant literature.<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Lean_Project_Management_tools&diff=49682 2018-02-16T20:33:34Z

<p>S122906: </p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below<br /> <br /> Language; Ok, minor gramar mistakes<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> The abstract mentions Lean tools, how many tools you will compare?, the content table list 3 tools, and then text says that two tools will be compared.<br /> <br /> There are many lean tools, why and how you decide the tools to compare, try to find references that classify this tools.<br /> <br /> You have a typo with the word &quot;Murda&quot; is MUDA, do not forget to add the definition of Muda and the importance of this word in the article.<br /> <br /> Six sigma is an statistical tool/technique developed by motorola for manufacturing processes focused to reduce defects, why is considered a lean tool?, find a reference .<br /> <br /> Since Lean approaches are related with different management styles from the recommended literature, please find more relevant literature.<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49375 2018-02-16T13:43:18Z

<p>S122906: /* Feedback 2 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49374 2018-02-16T13:42:50Z

<p>S122906: /* Feedback 1 |Reviewer name: Place your name here */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49373 2018-02-16T13:42:28Z

<p>S122906: /* Feedback 1 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1 |Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49365 2018-02-16T13:37:19Z

<p>S122906: /* Answer 1 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve??<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49364 2018-02-16T13:36:54Z

<p>S122906: </p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve??<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here?''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49353 2018-02-16T13:06:14Z

<p>S122906: </p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ==Feedback 2==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49352 2018-02-16T13:04:18Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 7 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> '''Annotated bibliography:''' <br /> <br /> Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49351 2018-02-16T13:03:17Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 6 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> '''Depth of treatment:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49350 2018-02-16T13:02:50Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 5 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> '''Interest and relevance:''' <br /> <br /> Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49349 2018-02-16T13:02:22Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 4 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> '''Figures and tables:''' <br /> <br /> Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49348 2018-02-16T13:02:05Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 3 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> '''Grammar and style:''' <br /> <br /> Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49347 2018-02-16T13:01:46Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 2 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> '''Structure and logic of the article:''' <br /> <br /> Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? <br /> <br /> Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49346 2018-02-16T13:01:21Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 1 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> '''Quality of the summary:'''<br /> <br /> Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49344 2018-02-16T13:00:28Z

<p>S122906: /* Feedback 1 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? <br /> <br /> Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? <br /> <br /> Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? <br /> <br /> Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? <br /> <br /> Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? <br /> <br /> Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? <br /> <br /> Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? <br /> <br /> Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? <br /> <br /> Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? <br /> <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49342 2018-02-16T12:59:03Z

<p>S122906: /* Question 1 · TEXT */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? <br /> What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49341 2018-02-16T12:58:41Z

<p>S122906: /* Answer 7 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here''</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49339 2018-02-16T12:58:15Z

<p>S122906: /* Answer 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here'</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49335 2018-02-16T12:57:12Z

<p>S122906: /* Feedback 1 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here'<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here'</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49331 2018-02-16T12:54:19Z

<p>S122906: /* Feedback 1 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> <br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> '''Answer 2'''<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> ''Answer here''<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> ''Answer here'<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===<br /> ''Answer here'</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=42433_APPPM_2018-Feedback_template_for_Wiki_article&diff=49326 2018-02-16T12:52:04Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Feedback 1== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? What would you suggest...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Feedback 1==<br /> <br /> ===Question 1 · TEXT===<br /> Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 1===<br /> <br /> ===Question 2 · TEXT===<br /> Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 2===<br /> <br /> ===Question 3 · TEXT===<br /> Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 3===<br /> <br /> ===Question 4 · TEXT===<br /> Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 4===<br /> <br /> ===Question 5 · TEXT===<br /> Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 5===<br /> <br /> ===Question 6 · TEXT===<br /> Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 6===<br /> <br /> ===Question 7 · TEXT===<br /> Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? What would you suggest to improve?<br /> <br /> ===Answer 7===</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Scope_Management&diff=49237 2018-02-16T09:26:27Z

<p>S122906: </p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing one more reference.<br /> <br /> Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your ''annotated bibliography'' section is a ''reference''.<br /> <br /> Can you elaborate more the abstract. what is the relevance for Project Manager?<br /> <br /> '''Updated Feedback'''<br /> <br /> Text clarity, language and references are ok.<br /> <br /> You already updated and modified the annotated bibliography and references.<br /> <br /> The abstract is ok, when developing the article don´t forget to elaborate and explain why is relevant for a Project Manager and what would be the implications for failing in the Project Scope Management.<br /> <br /> Check the ISO standard, and try to see if there is any substantial difference.<br /> <br /> Regarding the PMBOK references, there are 6th editions, please identify which edition is your reference and try to use the latest one if it is possible.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Communication_Management_Strategy&diff=48637 2018-02-15T08:34:28Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don&#039;t forget to elaborate and describe the ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Opportunity_research&diff=48636 2018-02-15T08:28:17Z

<p>S122906: </p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references.<br /> <br /> The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.<br /> <br /> However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager in this process.<br /> <br /> Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Opportunity_research&diff=48635 2018-02-15T08:24:48Z

<p>S122906: /* Abstract Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references.<br /> <br /> The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.<br /> <br /> However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager in this process</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Opportunity_research&diff=48634 2018-02-15T08:24:27Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below. Language; Ok. References; missing references. The abstract describes the need to look for ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references.<br /> <br /> The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.<br /> <br /> However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager i this process</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Roadmapping&diff=48633 2018-02-15T08:03:07Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the points you want to examine in the...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the points you want to examine in the article when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Program Manager.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Analyze_Portfolio_Risks&diff=48287 2018-02-13T20:07:50Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article you can describe briefly the different tool...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article you can describe briefly the different tools/techniques and then focus in a specific tool/technique or as you mentioned in your note (*) developing a process.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Vico_Office_as_a_project_management_tool&diff=48268 2018-02-13T19:54:28Z

<p>S122906: /* Abstract Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check comments below<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> Initially the abstract is not out of scope, if your article describes how procurement could be undertaken in a digital environment compared with traditional ways of procurement described in the standards.<br /> <br /> However if you develop a VICO user guidelines, then the article will be out of scope.<br /> <br /> The abstract lists, Model register-LBS Manager-Take-off Manager-Cost Planner-Schedule Planner-4D Simulation, that are different modules of the VICO workflows that will be out of scope.<br /> <br /> Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Vico_Office_as_a_project_management_tool&diff=48267 2018-02-13T19:53:51Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check comments below Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards Initially the abstract i...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check comments below<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> Initially the abstract is not out of scope, if your article describes how procurement could be undertaken in a digital environment compared with traditional ways of procurement described in the standards.<br /> <br /> However if you develop a VICO user guidelines, then the article will be out of scope.<br /> <br /> The abstract lists, Model register-LBS Manager-Take-off Manager-Cost Planner-Schedule Planner-4D Simulation, that are different modules of the VICO workflows that will out of scope.<br /> <br /> Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Power,_politics_and_stakeholder_management&diff=48223 2018-02-13T18:45:49Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don&#039;t forget to focus in the power and poli...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to focus in the power and politics aspects and avoid to write a too generic article.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=User:Marianna89&diff=47986 2018-02-13T08:45:45Z

<p>S122906: Creating user page for new user.</p> <hr /> <div></div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Uniqueness_of_a_project&diff=47984 2018-02-13T08:31:16Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don&#039;t forget to elaborate and describe the ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance of the topic for a Project/Program Manager.<br /> <br /> Try to focus in the Project/Program environment and use relevant literature from relevant databases.<br /> <br /> Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your ''annotated bibliography'' section are ''references''.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Articles_Spring_Term_2018&diff=47977 2018-02-13T08:09:22Z

<p>S122906: /* Overview of 2018 Wiki articles */</p> <hr /> <div>{| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |+ '''Disclaimer!<br /> |-<br /> |''The requirements for the articles written in previous Terms (2014, 2015, 2016, Jun 2017, 2017) were not the same as for Spring Term 2018. Please make sure you read the requirements for your own fall/spring term carefully before starting your wiki article.''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> Please complete this table with your group number, full name, username and the title of your article.<br /> <br /> To create more lines in the table click '''Edit''' and use the following code to create more lines in the table and replace the example text with your own information:<br /> <br /> &lt;pre style=&quot;white-space: pre-wrap; <br /> white-space: -moz-pre-wrap; <br /> white-space: -pre-wrap; <br /> white-space: -o-pre-wrap; <br /> word-wrap: break-word;&quot;&gt;<br /> |- <br /> |Group Number<br /> |First Name<br /> |Last Name<br /> |Username<br /> |Link to Article<br /> |-<br /> &lt;/pre&gt;<br /> Create a direct link by making square brackets ([[ ]]) around the title such as [[Title]]<br /> <br /> The straight lines ( | ) create columns and the straight line with a dash ( |- ) creates a new row in the table.<br /> <br /> ( |} ) is only used at the very end to finish the coding for the table.<br /> <br /> =Overview of 2018 Wiki articles=<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |+Spring Term 2018 Wiki Articles<br /> |-<br /> !Group Number<br /> !First Name<br /> !Last Name<br /> !User Name<br /> !Link to Article<br /> |-<br /> |5<br /> |Radoslaw<br /> |Tyczynski<br /> |Radoslaw<br /> |[[Project Time Management Overview]]<br /> |-<br /> |10<br /> |Ioannis<br /> |Papadantonakis<br /> |Giannis<br /> |[[Work Breakdown Structure]]<br /> |-<br /> |3<br /> |Konstantinos<br /> |Terzakis<br /> |s161563<br /> |[[Programming a project with the CPM]]<br /> |-<br /> |8<br /> |Hoda<br /> |Vazirinasab<br /> |hoda.vn<br /> |[[Agile project management]]<br /> |- <br /> |3<br /> |David<br /> |Moya Perrino<br /> |David Moya Perrino<br /> |[[Risk Management in Renewable Energy Projects]]<br /> |-<br /> |3<br /> |Sofie<br /> |Melchior Karlson<br /> |s133606<br /> |[[Belbin's team roles]]<br /> |-<br /> |10<br /> |Jan<br /> |Talas<br /> |jantalas<br /> |[[Roles and responsibilities]]<br /> |-<br /> |13<br /> |Sebastian<br /> |Graff Daugaard<br /> |Daugaard<br /> |[[Dealing with conflict in project management]]<br /> |-<br /> |8<br /> |Nikolaj<br /> |Justsen<br /> |s123742<br /> |[[Vico Office as a project management tool]]<br /> |-<br /> |2<br /> |Mehdi<br /> |Abounnasr<br /> |s176504<br /> |[[Project monitoring methods]]<br /> |-<br /> |9<br /> |Briet<br /> |Hjaltalin<br /> |Briet<br /> |[[The Framework of Project Governance]]<br /> |-<br /> |9<br /> |Jonas<br /> |Heiberg Larsen<br /> |JonasHL<br /> |[[Risk Management Overview]]<br /> |-<br /> |13<br /> |Kornpong<br /> |Mahitthiburin<br /> |Akorno<br /> |[[Financial appraisal of project proposals]]<br /> |-<br /> |7<br /> |Gudmundur<br /> |Hermannsson<br /> |gudmundur<br /> |[[Project Scope Management]]<br /> |-<br /> |9<br /> |Ína Salome<br /> |Sturludóttir<br /> |Ina<br /> |[[Project scope statement]]<br /> |-<br /> |11<br /> |Kevinth<br /> |Balasubramaniam<br /> |Kxviinth<br /> |[[Future Workshop]]<br /> |-<br /> |11<br /> |Davide<br /> |Sartori<br /> |DSartori<br /> |[[Hoshin Kanri]]<br /> |-<br /> |11<br /> |Julia<br /> |Hoesel<br /> |s172365<br /> |[[Design Thinking]]<br /> |-<br /> |2<br /> |Baptiste<br /> |Hubert<br /> |BaptisteH<br /> |[[Project Life Cycle in Industrial Engineering]]<br /> |- <br /> |8<br /> |Mint<br /> |Rasmussen<br /> |s133819<br /> |[[Risk Management in Construction Projects]]<br /> |-<br /> |11<br /> |Vincent<br /> |Oriot<br /> |s172793<br /> |[[Project sponsor]]<br /> |-<br /> |11<br /> |Torbjørn<br /> |Aleksandersen<br /> |Taleksandersen<br /> |[[Virtual Team Management]]<br /> |-<br /> |9<br /> |Ragnhildur<br /> |Ragnarsdottir<br /> |Ragnhildur<br /> |[[Brainstorming technique]]<br /> |-<br /> |10<br /> |Anne<br /> |Dittmann<br /> |Anne<br /> |[[Scheduling: Critical path, PERT, Gantt]]<br /> |-<br /> |1<br /> |Julianna<br /> |Apli<br /> |s172414<br /> |[[Ideation tools]]<br /> |-<br /> |9<br /> |Hildur<br /> |Gudmundsdottir<br /> |S172763<br /> |[[Contracting and procurement]]<br /> |-<br /> |1<br /> |Christopher<br /> |Søndergaard<br /> |s140234<br /> |[[;-)]]<br /> |-<br /> |8<br /> |Casper Geertz<br /> |Christensen<br /> |S136445<br /> |[[SWOT]]<br /> |-<br /> |13<br /> |Demir<br /> |Durovic<br /> |DemirDurovic<br /> |[[Managing multicultural teams]]<br /> |-<br /> |7<br /> |Lorenz<br /> |Sieferle<br /> |s172691<br /> |[[Agile Project Management with SCRUM]]<br /> |- <br /> |12<br /> |Jonas Greaker<br /> |Sjøen<br /> |s173562<br /> |[[Integrated Design Process (IDP)]]<br /> |-<br /> |- <br /> |2<br /> |Seyed (Habib)<br /> |Bahrami<br /> |Habib<br /> |[[Uniqueness of a project]]<br /> |-<br /> |4<br /> |Jonas<br /> |Samuelsen<br /> |Jonas Samuelsen<br /> |[[Risk Register Analysis]]<br /> |-<br /> |7<br /> |Johannes<br /> |Eckert<br /> |Johannes<br /> |[[Waterfall vs. Lean Project Management]]<br /> |-<br /> |4<br /> |Tobias<br /> |Andersen<br /> |Tobias<br /> |[[Belbin Team Roles]]<br /> |- <br /> |5<br /> |Oliver Adam Mølskov<br /> |Bech<br /> |Oliver.amb<br /> |[[Master Data Management]]<br /> |-<br /> |2<br /> |Ugur<br /> |Erman<br /> |Ugur<br /> |[[Why, How, What (The Golden Circle Model)]]<br /> |-<br /> |6<br /> |Nina<br /> |Bernhoft<br /> |Nina<br /> |[[Managing groups for high performance]]<br /> |-<br /> |1<br /> |Julie<br /> |Laursen<br /> |Julie<br /> |[[Meeting strategies]]<br /> |-<br /> |11<br /> |Ole<br /> |Schwiethal<br /> |s172276<br /> |[[Project governance framework]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |12<br /> |Marianne<br /> |Delp<br /> |Marianne<br /> |[[Choosing by Advantages (CBA)]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |4<br /> |Christian<br /> |Pedersen<br /> |S093223<br /> |[[Communication Management Strategy]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |12<br /> |Lukasz<br /> |Marczuk<br /> |s172569<br /> |[[Cash flow &amp; payment milestones ]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |6<br /> |Rikke<br /> |Husum<br /> |s170446<br /> |[[Coaching - Project Manager as Change Agent]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |12<br /> |Simen Michael Dilling<br /> |Hjelseth<br /> |SimenHjelseth<br /> |[[Integrated Concurrent Engineering]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |4<br /> |Katja Kimmer<br /> |Larsen<br /> |Katja<br /> |[[Organizational structures]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |6<br /> |Ida<br /> |Smidt<br /> |idasmidt<br /> |[[Lean Approach to Scheduling in Construction Projects]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |1<br /> |Walther<br /> |Emil Eriksen<br /> |Walther Emil Eriksen<br /> |[[Value Proposition Canvas]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |4<br /> |Rasmus Peter<br /> |Østerlund<br /> |R4smus<br /> |[[Key Performance Indicators (KPI)]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |8<br /> |Daniel Alejandro<br /> |Campos Rivera<br /> |Daniel Campos<br /> |[[Business Analytics in Civil Engineering Projects]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |14<br /> |Matthew<br /> |Wells<br /> |Matthew Wells<br /> |[[Line Balancing - Yamazumi Chart Method]]<br /> |-<br /> |3<br /> |Ignasi<br /> |Girones Cadiz<br /> |<br /> |[[Work Breakdown Structure]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |14<br /> |Ellen <br /> |Trovåg Amundsen<br /> |ellentam<br /> |[[Beyond the Triple Constraints]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |1<br /> |Joachim Schou<br /> |Larsen<br /> |Joachim Schou Larsen<br /> |[[Power, politics and stakeholder management]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |15<br /> |Benedek <br /> |Zajkas<br /> |Benedek Zajkas<br /> |[[Scrum vs. Waterfall Methodology]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |15<br /> |Gustavo<br /> |Pagliari Valerio dos Santos<br /> |s176056<br /> |[[Negotiation skills from the PM's perspective]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |12<br /> |Natalia<br /> |Krygier<br /> |Natalia Krygier<br /> |[[Behaviors in scheduling]]<br /> |-<br /> |3<br /> |Argyro<br /> |Soumpourlou<br /> |s170073<br /> |[[Cross-cultural Management]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |13<br /> |Andrzej<br /> |Kubik<br /> |s172608<br /> |[[Different sides of Project Management Scheduling]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |2<br /> |Lima<br /> |Parhiz<br /> |s134639<br /> |[[Essential Managerial Tasks]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |4<br /> |Harald<br /> |Hersted<br /> |s145067<br /> |[[Human resource management]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |5<br /> |Sarah<br /> |Bourdiaux Terp<br /> |Sarah<br /> |[[The Sprint Methodology in Agile Project Management]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |1<br /> |Jonathan<br /> |Nøddeskov Clifford<br /> |S142556<br /> |[[Roadmapping]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |9<br /> |Erna Gudny<br /> |Aradottir<br /> |ErnaGudny<br /> |[[SMART Goals]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |5<br /> |Klaudia Edyta<br /> |Onyszkiewicz<br /> |Onysz<br /> |[[Project Team Roles and Responsibilities]]<br /> |-<br /> |13<br /> |Aksel<br /> |Watson<br /> |S175507<br /> |[[Managing start-ups in Unregulated Markets]]<br /> |-<br /> |12<br /> |Alice<br /> |Allouche<br /> |Alice<br /> |[[Meetings Management]]<br /> <br /> |-<br /> |5<br /> |Susan<br /> |Tyrell<br /> |Styrell<br /> |[[The Role of the Project Sponsor]]<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |10<br /> |Casper<br /> |Stroem<br /> |S172043<br /> |[[Business Case]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |7<br /> |Cetin<br /> |Arslan<br /> |Arslance<br /> |[[User-Centered Design]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |13<br /> |Piotr<br /> |Mieszalo<br /> |PiotrMieszalo<br /> |[[Resources loading, leveling and crashing]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |6<br /> |Mads<br /> |Grøndal<br /> |s123666<br /> |[[Value Analysis]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |6<br /> |Emma<br /> |Balstrup Klinke Hansen<br /> |s134181<br /> |[[Kotter's 8- Step Change Model]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |8<br /> |David<br /> |Baldursson<br /> |s162284<br /> |[[Supply chain management in construction]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |3<br /> |Nikoleta<br /> |Kolitsopoulou-Maridaki<br /> |s162461<br /> |[[Roles and responsibilities of program manager]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |7<br /> |Magnus<br /> |Held<br /> |s133656<br /> |[[Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Various Project Stages]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |7<br /> |Lars<br /> |From-Hansen<br /> |s133654<br /> |[[Brainstorming as a risk identification method]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |13<br /> |Iga<br /> |Cichecka<br /> |s172607<br /> |[[Feasibility Analysis]]<br /> |-<br /> <br /> |- <br /> |5<br /> |Hafsteinn Thor<br /> |Gudjonsson<br /> |Hafsteinnthor<br /> |TBD<br /> |-</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Supply_chain_management_in_construction&diff=47938 2018-02-12T21:49:07Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok, minor grammar mistakes References; missing references related to the standards In general the abstract is ok, when dev...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok, minor grammar mistakes<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.<br /> <br /> Try to connect the article with procurement part of the standards.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Kotter%27s_8-_Step_Change_Model&diff=47934 2018-02-12T21:40:45Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you a...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you are describing the model from a pure organizational point of view in a organizational environment, try to relate the topic within a project/program/portfolio environment.<br /> <br /> If you want to continue with the topic, try to find relevant literature that shows this model in the course context.<br /> <br /> Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Why,_How,_What_(The_Golden_Circle_Model)&diff=47923 2018-02-12T21:21:31Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards The abstract describes the use of the golden circle in organiz...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> The abstract describes the use of the golden circle in organizations, try to develop the article thinking in the project organization and find relevant literature.<br /> <br /> Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your ''annotated bibliography'' section are ''references''.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Scrum_vs._Waterfall_Methodology&diff=47908 2018-02-12T21:08:30Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards Try to find if the methods of your article are related with th...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> Try to find if the methods of your article are related with the standards, if not find relevant literature.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Brainstorming_as_a_risk_identification_method&diff=47905 2018-02-12T21:03:04Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don&#039;t forget to to find relevant literature...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to to find relevant literature and elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:User-Centered_Design&diff=47899 2018-02-12T20:56:39Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don&#039;t forget to reference th...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to reference the article and try connect with the content of course.<br /> <br /> Try to see if you can connect with the PM ISO 21500.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Failure_Mode_and_Effects_Analysis_in_Various_Project_Stages&diff=47893 2018-02-12T20:50:46Z

<p>S122906: /* Abstract Feedback */</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget the references and try to connect with subject areas of risk from the standards.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Failure_Mode_and_Effects_Analysis_in_Various_Project_Stages&diff=47892 2018-02-12T20:50:34Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article d...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards.<br /> <br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget the references and try to connect with subject areas of risk from the standards.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Value_Analysis&diff=47879 2018-02-12T20:41:38Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to connect the topic with the standards for example with the &quot;cost&quot; subject group of the ISO 21500 or the equivalent of he PMBOK.<br /> <br /> Value Engineering is associated commonly in Lean projects.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Agile_Project_Management_with_SCRUM&diff=47711 2018-02-12T13:10:45Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article do...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate the article based in the sections recomended<br /> in the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and check the Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Waterfall_vs._Lean_Project_Management&diff=47710 2018-02-12T13:03:59Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards. As it is indicated...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards.<br /> <br /> As it is indicated in the abstract, Waterfall is a sequential model but also is a process whereas Lean Project Management is a management style.<br /> <br /> If you go for comparing processes compare waterfall vs. &quot;pull processes&quot; that are the ones common in Lean approach.<br /> <br /> If you go for comparing management styles, check in which type of management styles are most common the waterfall model.<br /> <br /> When developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager from both perspectives whenever you go for the processes aspects or the management styles.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Work_Breakdown_Structure&diff=47694 2018-02-12T12:40:42Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don&#039;t forget to ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; Ok.<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic.<br /> <br /> Try to find new trends in the use of WBS.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Essential_Managerial_Tasks&diff=47687 2018-02-12T12:33:27Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you a...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the standards<br /> <br /> The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you are describing a manager from an organizational point of view in a organizational environment, try to relate the topic within a project/program/portfolio environment.<br /> <br /> If you want to continue with the title, try to find literature that shows what are the basic, &quot;essential managerial tasks&quot; to be a successful PM.<br /> <br /> Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.</div>

S122906 http://13.50.150.85/index.php?title=Talk:Value_Proposition_Canvas&diff=47672 2018-02-12T12:22:49Z

<p>S122906: Created page with &quot;==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the topic In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don&#039;t f...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Abstract Feedback==<br /> Text Clarity; Ok.<br /> <br /> Language; Ok.<br /> <br /> References; missing references related to the topic<br /> <br /> In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.<br /> <br /> Try to connect the topic with &quot;stakeholder management&quot; aspects.</div>

S122906