Talk:A method to analyze visualizations in project management as boundary objects

review2, s150894

Overall:

The subject seems interesting!
It is easy to understand and follow the article. The language is good and clear.
I like that you link to other terms that you use in your article and that you give clear examples, it give a better flow in the text.
I am excited to read the rest of the article.

Some suggestions for improvement:

There are not a lot to improve at your text. It is good and reflected.
There are one line in the text I did not quite understand: “ “[Boundary objects] provides a basis upon which actors from different social worlds can achieve a common understanding despite their differing interests and perceptions" Garrety and Badham social worlds different types of boundaries”. This is from the “Boundary objects”.
The introduction could be called the abstract and you could use some images, to make your points clearer.

I have rewritten the text on boundary objects. It was a very unfinished draft so the text have been rewritten.
I have switched the text from introduction to abstract

Overall:

Very interesting, complicated and up-to-date topic
I like that you managed to come up with a strucutre that supports your choice of topic
The overall "method" structure is followed succesfully

Recommendations:

The introduction, which adequately describes the content of the article, could easily be converted into the abstract part (you do not need the introduction part according to the "methods" structure)
As it is a complex topic, maybe more references were needed to be included in the text
The chapter "Visualization as boundary objects" could be analysed further in a more simple way, as it seems to me a bit complicated and with cohesion problems.
There are some grammatical errors
Some figures could be added to help with the better understanding of the text, especially in your case that you are talking about "visualisation".

In general, I really like the choice of topic and the way in which you decided to present it.

Introduction have been made to abstract
I'm still deciding whether or not to include a introduction
Chapter "Visualization as boundary objects" have been shortened down from the unfinished draft
I have read the article through to look at grammatical errors
I have included illustrations in the different chapters

The title catches my interest but I’m not entirely sure of what the article is about. The introduction answer that question which is really good.
I like the layout and content of the article. It is precise and exactly what I need to understand the topic and to start my own brainstorm.

It is clear that the article is made out of the “methods” structure. This is also mentioned in the title. The author follows the expected structure with excellence.
The language is very good throughout the article, there are no grammatical or spelling errors and the sentences are very good structured. The layout of the article is also very good. To me it looks like a wiki article and I cannot find any mistakes done in the layout.
There are unfortunately no figures in the article which makes it a bit booring but I feel like the scope of the article is easy to understand anyway. Maybe there could have been at least one figure to explain the visualization of boundary objects.

I think that the article is very interesting for a practitioner, the article is very academic correct and it extends to this high level of quality. There is also a clear relation to the course with project, program and portfolio management.
The length of the article seems appropriate and I don’t feel that there are any sections missing except the conclusion in the end which I assume is going to be done after the feedback is done.
The sources and references are looking good but I would like to have a short description of each reference so that I, as a reader, know what kind of reference they are and what I can find from each of them.

Don’t forget to add abstract to state what the article is about and what will be addressed. That will improve the overall understanding of the article and it will be easier for the reader to follow the red thread. It would also be interesting in the summery to read about why you choose this topic.
I think that the author should change all the abbreviations, e.g. “it’s” should be “it is”. By writing the full word the sentence will be more fluent in my opinion.
I think there is a misspelling/mistake under section “Definition of visualization”. The author have written “closing” and I think the sentence should end with “are”.
Under section “boundary objects” there is a part of a sentence between two segments which should be removed or put into one of the segments. It looks also that it might be something wrong with two sources for the segments.