Talk:Getting Things Done in Project Management: The Five Phases of Project Planning

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity	Good
Language	Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good
Purpose explanation	It is not related to project, program or portfolio management
Title of the Wiki	A new title could be relevant if you adapt the article to project, program or portfolio management
Relevance to curriculum	How does it relate to project, program or portfolio management? Try to make it related to project management
References	Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Francisco Almirudis

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 to improve?

Answer 1

Yes, it is clear that the author wants to introduce and explain GTD and it's application

Comma and upper case usage for better flow. Maybe some bold text to highlight important keywords.

Question 2 · TEXT

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?

Answer 2

In this regards I think all is fine, the flow of the article makes sense.

Question 3 · TEXT

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?

Answer 3

A few grammatical mistakes, but otherwise very good in this area, the text goes straigh to the point and makes it clear.

Question 4 · TEXT

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?

Answer 4

No figures or tables as of now.

Question 5 · TEXT

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?

Answer 5

No suggestions here, the article is useful and it's clear why it is relevant.

Question 6 · TEXT

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?

Answer 6

I don't think I am qualified to answer this question.

Question 7 · TEXT

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?

Answer 7

Good bibliography so far, needs to be expanded but I am sure that will come.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Madalina Grigoras

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 to improve?

Answer 1

Yes,but I would improve it with more and deeper details.

Question 2 · TEXT

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?

Answer 2

There are no contradictions, it is consistent and it has a logical flow.

Question 3 · TEXT

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?

Answer 3

It is well written except for some little ortographic errors.

Question 4 · TEXT

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?

Answer 4

I would add at least one or two imagines in order to have a richer article.

Question 5 · TEXT

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?

Answer 5

Go deeper in the concepts (ex. conclusions) and show in a better way why it is related to project,program,portfolio management.

Question 6 · TEXT

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?

Answer 6

It is well done, and very interesting.

Question 7 · TEXT

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?

Answer 7

I would find and add more sources in order to improve the topic. I would put together 'references and bibliography' when quoting.