Talk:Resources loading, leveling and crashing
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Good
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Abstract needs to be expanded - explain what scheduling is and its relationship to resources/resource management
Purpose explanation Consider
- What issue are you addressing?
- Briefly explain the structure of article to set the reader's expectations
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?
References Okay, try adding more appropriate references from the mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- What will the reader get out of reading this article?
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sebastian Daugaard
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
The article gives a brief introduction to the topic and why it is of interest to project managers. It could use a bit more length.
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
At the time of writing, the article is too short to discuss flow and whether parts are building on each other. Naturally, no contradictions exists either. The topic of the article leans toward visualization tools and perhaps examples. I would look into that.
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
The writing is fine and seems very encyklopedia-esque.
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 yet.
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
I can clearly see the relevance of the article. It just needs to be worked on more. Because it involves several methods, I could imagine that it has to be quite comprehensive.
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
This is one of the topics that could be interesting to read up on, just to get a better understanding of how the different tasks can be conducted. Thus, it can be of interest to practicioners as well as acedemics; granted that it receives some work.
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
No annotated bibliography. The referencing seems objective, so it is mainly just a matter of maturing the article more.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kornpong Mahitthiburin
Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:good
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
Yes, more length in abstract would be nice.
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
I cannot make a justification based on the few content at this time .
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
I have not spotted any error, I believe that everything seems to be good.
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 yet.
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
This needed to be worked more, It is totally convinced me to accept at this stage but may not others.
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
This is very interesting for both, yes, and nothing.
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
Two mentioned references are good, but it is impossible to justify this article at this time because there is not much content.
