Talk:Project Evaluation and Selection for the Formation of the Optimal Portfolio

reviewed by Saeh0803

1. Very long summary, maybe you can make it a bit short and interesting for reader

2. you didn't referenced the first figure in the text, you also not referenced the figure number two on the text, I know you explain the points from figure, but you need to write something like "..as it shown in figure X".

• Is the article interesting for a practitioner? --> I think it is a bit boring, it is maybe the way of writing.. (long explanations and long sentences ) but over all I think it is a good article and you have all main points, but if I search for this topic at google and want to read about it, then I will chose one, which is short and precis.. because you have write it in too many details..

• Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic? --> Yes

• Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to? --> yes

• Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.) --> I think this articles is more in 3500 words, I can't see it on WIKI, but it seems to be more than 3500..

• Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread? --> I think yes

• Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors--> I think yes, I have difficult to understand,maybe because my English is not so good, but its really difficult to understand and readers may read one sentence more than one time to understand it..

• Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long winded, hard to follow mega -sentences? --> Puhaaa, I think it is difficult to understand and follow, you both have long sentences and many explanations

• Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure?

• Are the figures free of formal errors--> yes

• Are the figures referenced in the text? --> the first figure is not referenced in the text

• Does the author have the copyright or right to use the figures (e.g.through Creative) common Non-Commercial share Alike attribution?) --> maybe, can't see

• Is the article formatted properly, i.e. are the typical Wiki-features such sub-headings, proper bullet-point list and Wiki-style references used? are graphics, videos ect. integrated correctly? --> Yes

as I wrote, overall your article is good, try to change the sentences, so its understandable, maybe make it shorts and use some every days words, so everyone can understand what they are reading about :)

I hope you can use my comments and best of luck :)

Reviewed by kikigaga

Hi, as a product engineer I think the subject is interesting. So great:) I believe that the article might be too long compared to the content, but what do I know..

Some short comments, since the other reviewer went through all the points I will only go through the ones i thought was standing out.

• Clarify the introduction so that the user knows what he/she is reading about.
  • As i said, it is interesting but the long introduction made me almost give up.
• Gramma fails in some sentences
  • Maybe it is because of sentences referring to the sentence before all the time, it is hard to read.
• Refer to the models or keep them out
  • As i could see non of the figures are referred to?
• There are 4 major sources of internal dependencies – Says who?
  • Make it clear: When is it your voice and when the references? (The implementation advice e.g.)

Thank you, and good luck:)

Reply to Saeh0803

First of all, thanks for your feedback, I found it very useful.

I went through each of the points, so I will paste here the bullet points in order to facilitate the reading. Your comments are in italics, while mines are in bold.

1. Very long summary, maybe you can make it a bit short and interesting for reader

Actually, the summary is in the order of 500 words, that was the recommended size of the abstract. Anyway, I think that you are right, since it is quite long as an introduction and there is information that may not need to be there (I think that the illustration may also have an impact on the perceived size of this part). Finally, I managed to make it 150 words shorter, keeping the most relevant content.

2. you didn't referenced the first figure in the text, you also not referenced the figure number two on the text, I know you explain the points from figure, but you need to write something like "..as it shown in figure X".

You are right, this point has been addressed throughout the article.

• Is the article interesting for a practitioner? --> I think it is a bit boring, it is maybe the way of writing.. (long explanations and long sentences ) but over all I think it is a good article and you have all main points, but if I search for this topic at google and want to read about it, then I will chose one, which is short and precis.. because you have write it in too many details..

I've taken your point in consideration. I guess it's difficult to say if it is interesting or not, since maybe the topic per se is not interesting for you, but it may be for another person. However, I agree with the fact that keeping it simpler may be a better approach to try to engage the readers.

• Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic? --> Yes

Check

• Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to? --> yes

Check

• Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.) --> I think this articles is more in 3500 words, I can't see it on WIKI, but it seems to be more than 3500..

You are correct. It was in the order of 4,500, but after getting rid of some very detailed information, I managed to make an article of about 3,600 words, without the table of contents and references (which is about 900 less words than before). However, even if its a little bit over 3,500, I think that the information that it contains right now is important and relevant for the topic

• Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread? --> I think yes

Check

• Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors--> I think yes, I have difficult to understand,maybe because my English is not so good, but its really difficult to understand and readers may read one sentence more than one time to understand it..

Thanks, I've considered your comment in order to go through the text and try to make every sentence a little bit clearer.

• Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long winded, hard to follow mega -sentences? --> Puhaaa, I think it is difficult to understand and follow, you both have long sentences and many explanations

As stated before, I've gone through all the text to look for this type of sentences.

• Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure?

• Are the figures free of formal errors--> yes

Check

• Are the figures referenced in the text? --> the first figure is not referenced in the text

As stated before, this mistake has already been corrected.

• Does the author have the copyright or right to use the figures (e.g.through Creative) common Non-Commercial share Alike attribution?) --> maybe, can't see

I draw all of the images by myself in order to avoid this point, and I made reference to the only one that I more or less took from other sources.

• Is the article formatted properly, i.e. are the typical Wiki-features such sub-headings, proper bullet-point list and Wiki-style references used? are graphics, videos ect. integrated correctly? --> Yes

Check

as I wrote, overall your article is good, try to change the sentences, so its understandable, maybe make it shorts and use some every days words, so everyone can understand what they are reading about :)

I hope you can use my comments and best of luck :)

Thank you very much for your feedback; it was really useful. Sometimes, when you are writing, you don't know if you are being clear enough or if you are including enough detail, or too much of it. I think that with your feedback I've been able to improve my article, from format to the actual structure of the sentences.

Reply to kikigaga

Hello, thank you very much for your feedback. I've found it interesting and relevant for improving my article. I know that it was quite long, so I've taken that into consideration for only including the most relevant parts. I will go through every bullet point to reply each of your suggestions. I include my comments in bold and yours in italics.

Hi, as a product engineer I think the subject is interesting. So great:) I believe that the article might be too long compared to the content, but what do I know..

Thanks! I'm glad that you found it interesting. I have shortened my article a little bit to make it more entertaining to read and to help the readers to go through it in a more natural way.

Some short comments, since the other reviewer went through all the points I will only go through the ones i thought was standing out.

• Clarify the introduction so that the user knows what he/she is reading about.
  • As i said, it is interesting but the long introduction made me almost give up.

I agree with it. I've tried to highlight in some way the purpose of the article and to help the reader understand from the beginning what he/she is reading about. At the same time, the introduction was reduced in 150 words, so now it only contains the most relevant information.

• Gramma fails in some sentences
  • Maybe it is because of sentences referring to the sentence before all the time, it is hard to read.

I've gone though the whole text taking this into consideration to avoid repetition of ideas or referring to sentences before.

• Refer to the models or keep them out
  • As i could see non of the figures are referred to?

Now the text include references to the figures. I think now it is easier to relate to them to have a better idea of what the text is about.

• There are 4 major sources of internal dependencies – Says who?
  • Make it clear: When is it your voice and when the references? (The implementation advice e.g.)

I've now clarified correctly that point. Actually, I read a couple of articles about dependencies, and I saw that they could be grouped in 4 categories. Now, I think that it could be easily seen if that is mine or someone else's idea

Thank you, and good luck:)

Once again, thanks for your feedback. I think that now I have an easier to read article and it is better formatted than before. Good luck to you as well.

happy to hear it :) good luck for the final and with your rest exams,