Talk:Stephen Covey's seven principles
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Needs to be elaborated and more specific |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Missing some references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | It lacks a bit of context |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Martin Eberholst Carlsen
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 summary gives a good introduction to what we are about to read. Like the quote: "Interesting parts of Covey’s thinking is how you must be able to manage yourself to manage other people, thus working in projects." as it gives an idea why this is important in Project Management. I haven't seen a lot of "cons" in the article, but I guess that will be in the Updated version. Could maybe use a final concluding sentence binding it all together, but otherwise good.
I really like the topic, and are now definitely thinking of applying these principles to my life !
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
Is the argument clear? Have more examples of why it is relevant to Project Management. I don't get the Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 talk in "3. Put first things first", is this referring the the quarters of a year. The "4. Think win-win" section I think there should be some more thorough explaining of the different types.
Is there a logical flow to the article? I think the flow of the article is good, as it is natural to go through each of the habits, and it is a good idea to make a conclusion in the end tying it all together.
Does one part build upon the other? Not so much as it is different principles, but I see no problem in this.
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes, but the sections needs to be updated.
What would you suggest to improve? Write the: "(10 % is words we say), (30 % is by our sound), (60 % is body language)" in the article somehow. It is confusing when you have just said there is four types.
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
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? I haven't seen so many grammatical and spelling errors.
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? I think there could be some work in making the article more clear and concise. I think the language could be a bit more formal.
What would you suggest to improve? I would try not to write "We" so much in the article, choose a more natural word.
Example: "We will go through different aspects of mindsets, behaviors and processes that can contribute to be a more effective individual" CHANGED TO: "The different aspects of mindsets, behaviors and processes that can contribute to be a more effective individual will be assessed"
"Let’s say you are on fire on your leadership" - don't write this, I get the point but this is almost slang.
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
Are figures and tables clear? No figures and tables.
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -
What would you suggest to improve? More figures and tables.
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
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? I would say it is of high practical relevance, but it should be referenced further.
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? In the introduction the link to PM is addressed and how it should be used in our everyday life.
What would you suggest to improve? More examples of why it is interesting for Project Managers.
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
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes I think it is relevant to read for practitioner as it is interesting to see if you already are following some of the habits, and if there is room for improvement.
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? I guess it is pretty well described in Stephen Covey's article, but I like the different examples of how it is used or should be used in Project Management
What would you suggest to improve? Have more examples of why it is relevant for a project manager as this would significantly increase the contribution.
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
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? It only cites Stephen Coveys article, finding more source would be preferred.
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? I guess it is based on experience by Stephen Covey, but if he has based his findings on empirical data, it would be good to introduce this in the article.
What would you suggest to improve? Add more citations, and introduce if his findings are backed by empirical data.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Martin Kirk
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
Very clear. The ending of the abstract is however a bit abrupt/sudden. I think one more (closing) sentence would help, informing about the key point/conclusion of the article. I understand however if this has been left out at present, given this is only the first draft, and the conclusion is not yet finalised.
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
The argument of the article is very clear and concise, just as the title states.
There is a very easily followed flow through the article. The joy of writing about an already highly-structured topic! :)
The seven parts somewhat build on top of each other, but also compliment each other, which is all good.
The article is very consistent in its arguments (again, you are writing about seven discrete sub-topics, so I would naturally expect this consistency).
Suggested improvements would be graphical elements to accompany the text (but I suspect they are on their way, given the empty figure at the bottom, ready to be populated, and perhaps inserted several places in the article).
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 article is in serious need of proof-reading..sorry! BTW 'sharping' is not a word :)
The language used is great; precise, without fill and easily legible.
No further improvements necessary here.
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 suspect you prioritised text over illustrations in this first draft, which given the 'effectiveness-efficiency' paradigm in your article is wise.
My recommendation would be one illustration per principle (7 in all), plus two or three more somewhere appropriate.
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
The article in its present form is highly interesting but probably more for academics rather than practitioners.
The article does a good job in the abstract of saying why this topic is important. However, as yet it is not materialised in practical recommendations. However, I suspect this may come in the conclusion..
I would suggest finding an angle on this topic that interests you personally the most, and then turning that aspect into a practical recommendation. Don't forget to mention other generic aspects too, however, but place most weight on one key thought/insight.
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
The article is generally very interesting to a broad audience, academics as practitioners.
It definitely delivers information more efficiently than a standard web search; it strikes me as a combination of a dictionary definition on each of the seven principles and a review of Covey's book; very nicely weighted indeed!
I would not change anything in its style; it really engages the reader.
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
Citations and bibliography clearly needs more elaborate work. Annotated bibliography section is missing; don't forget this one! :)
Empirical data is widely used, making the article very neutral and credible.
Suggestions are obvious, but again good prioritisation of your first draft time! :)
