Talk:Types of activities
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | - |
| Language | - |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | - |
| Purpose explanation | - |
| Title of the Wiki | - |
| Relevance to curriculum | - |
| References | Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | Anstract is missing so I cannot give you feedback. What is the purpose of the article? |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sandro Pina
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
I think that the subject is well tackled and explained. Even though it doesn't pass a personal view on the theme, but as the writer mentioned it is not finished yet, it is clear what is it about and well exposed.
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 arcticle is clear and well structured. The subthemes are well organised. So far, it is very concrete and concise so I believe it is free of contradictions. I would suggest to put more personal input. To mention why is it important to talk about this, how does this relate to APPPM. I would put in Bold in the "Define the Project's Activities" the bullet points. (personal advice) In the Sequence activities part if it could be better distributed so it wouldn't be so much text together. But I understand it is difficult.
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 language is concise and clear. Only minor spelling: in "Activity description" maybe it is quotes "" instead of accents ´` (?) and in the pre last point of this part when it is "finish-to finish" should be "finish-to-finish". As I said, minor spelling.
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
There are no figures nor 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
Mentioned before it should be better linked with the curriculum of the course so the reader can actually see why is he reading it.
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
Thea arcticle is still under development. I believe that a summary with a personal approach would be interesting for 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
There is no bibliography or references.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: sai mahesh nadukuru
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer 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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
