Talk:Feasibility Analysis
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Okay, but add references to increase credibility. The abstract can be expanded
Purpose explanation Good, but can be improved:
- Consider explaining the structure and content of the article to align reader expectations
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Good, but consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- Try linking the topic to a project life cycle (check PMBOK)
- Consider linking this to creating a business case?
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Aksel Watson
Question 1 • TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Answer 1
The summary is very good, and get to the point quickly. It gives a good overview of what you are about to read and make the reader interested. There are a bit of grammatical and spelling mistakes that should be corrected.
Question 2 • TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Answer 2
The argument is good, and indicates the importance of feasibility studies within any industry. The part of the article that is written has a good flow, and shows step-by-step how to conduct a feasibility analysis to start with.
Question 3 • TEXT
Grammar and style:
Answer 3
Very few grammatical errors. Read it through once more, and the last mistakes will be caught.
Question 4 • TEXT
'Figures and tables:
Answer 4
The are no tables and figures.
Question 5 • TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Answer 5
It is very academic relevant, since a feasibility study is relevant in many projects. Maybe you could write a an introduction for the process to show which type of projects need a feasibility and which does not.
Question 6 • TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Answer 6
At the moment the article is very descriptive – but when the points are filled in, I think the article will be a good and contribute to what you find on the internet.
Question 7 • TEXT
Answer 7
There is only one source, however this source is both relevant and denoted correctly in the text and in the end
