Talk:Gantt Charts as a Tool for Project Management

Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles.

Reviewer 3: DanielKrogh

Formal aspects

• The structure of the article is made as expected from type 1 article.
• There is few errors in the text. Be careful to use daily speaking language like e.g. “didn’t” instead for did not.
• The sentences are well formulated are in the right length.
• All the important points in the article are illustrated in figures.
• It is easy to understand the figures and they are well explained.
• Almost every figure is referenced in the text, but where Figure 1? Make sure that each figure has its own number and are referenced in the text.
• All the figures is referenced.
• There is a lack of sub-headings which could be made easily. The figures size are proper and does not need to edited.

Content aspects

• It is a highly interesting topic and hence it is relevant for a practitioner.
• The length of the article is as expected.
• The flow of the article has a logical structure and have no comments on that.
• The summary fitted fine for this size of a project and highlighted the most important things.
• I do not have access to the reference list, so I cannot comment on that.
• The author has begun to make an annotated bibliography but is not finished yet.
• The overall impression is that there is no trace of plagiarism.

It is a very interesting topic, but also very relevant. If I should come with any suggestions, it would be if there could be an example of any real life cases where it went good/bad. The article is easy to read and the flow is good.

Authors reply on review: I will make sure to change "didn't" to "did not". I will reference to Figure 1 and create sub-headings. I mistook the annotated bibliography for a reference list and will correct this. I did think of refering to a case, but since this is an atricle of type 1 where only the method is explained I chose not to.

Reviewer 1: s131882

1. Really nice explanation of the tool. It is easy understandable and engaging even for people not related with project, program and portfolio management. Moreover, the article clearly relates to project, program and portfolio management and it seems really useful for practitioners. 2. The figures used are really useful to understand the text and they are properly referenced along the explanation. 3. There is a read threat along the article that make easy to read it. Well done! 4. The whole explanation is really nice, but some grammar and spelling errors make the whole article look a bit worse (i.e. mostly not needed hyphens) 5. Again, the way is written the article is very nice, but it would be necessary to reformulate some sentences excessively long (e.g. “Some tasks can overlap each other because they don't depend on each other but on the other hand some tasks may be dependent on one another and therefore it can be useful to use indications of dependencies that link related tasks together in the Gantt chart”)

6. The content is really nice; thus the form should also be. Check the layout of the article as it seems that there are some interference between images and text.

7. It is nice to have such reliable sources. However it is not necessary to state the same reference so many time. To refer several times to the same source it can be done by initially doing:

ref name="Orr"> [Uncharted Territory] Orr, Alan (2003) "Uncharted Territory", IEE Engineering management </ref

And whenever you want to refer again to the reference: ref name=Orr/ (I haven't put some "<" and ">" in order to keep it has text).

8. It would also be nice if you could check how to do the references of websites in a more formal way. For instance, it is recommended to state when you have gathered the information. In the case of a book, it is necessary to state from which pages you have picked the information. Also mention that you deal with some subject that you could link with other wiki articles of the platform (e.g. Uncertainty).

9. In order to follow the guidelines for type 1 articles, it would be nice to add a section for the limitations of the model.

10. Maybe it will be nice to state that the different tasks can be grouped (e.g. Research, development and implementation as groups and inside the group of Research could be “Material costs”, “Market analysis”, “Articles related with the materials”, etc.). See Figure 1

Figure 1: Put tasks in groups (source: http://www.matchware.com/en/templates/gantt-chart-template-construction-project.php.

11. It is nice how you explain the concept of “float”. I think that the graph really helps to underastand it. However, maybe you could explain that the if a task is delayed, it doesn’t affect the overall time of the project but it do affect the total cost.

12. It seems that you have mixed the concepts of annotated bibliography and references. The annotated references refer to some further reading for the article. They should go with a brief explanation of why it is interesting for the reader.

To sum up, it has been really nice to read this article. Although it is a common tool that I though I knew perfectly, I've learn some new aspects of it. Moreover, the fact that it's written in a nice way and having a clear red thread along the text made the experience even better. I hope my suggestions can help!

Authors reply on review: I will make sure to take a look at my grammar and spelling issues and shorten long sentences. Since this is the first time I have made a wiki article I have found it difficult to place pictures and text where I want it to be placed, I will however try to improve this. This goes for the many references as well, I didn't know how to use one number for the same reference, but will apply your piece of code - thanks for the tip! I will also correct the manor of stating the references in a more formal way. I will link my article to other relevant articles - good idea! And yes - I mistook the annotated bibliography for a reference list and will correct this. :)

Reviewer 2: s140767

Formal aspects:

• The article's structure meets all requirements.
• The writing style is coherent, short with easy-to-understand precise sentences.
• Few grammatical errors (f.ex. activities that needs)
• All main points illustrated with an appropriate figure, but Figure 1 is missing.
• All figures are very understandable, but Figure 4 and 5 have too big size.
• References to figures provided.

Content aspects:

• The article could be interesting to a practitioner because it provides a clear overview of the tool guidance, with relevance to project management and possible pitfalls.
• It meets almost all requirements including: the length, academic language, sufficient sources.
• The number references are slightly above required (3-10)
• Missing annotated bibliography.

In general, it is a very good article! Easy to read, coherent, and gave me a very clear understanding of the tool. I had the pleasure to read this article.

Authors reply on review: I will correct Figure 1, however the reason for the big Figures 4 and 5 is to be able to read the text in the figures, and I would like to keep the size of them. I mistook the annotated bibliography for a reference list and will correct this.