Talk:Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in Project Management
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: 'Anne Dittmann
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 two lines written is clear and address a very relevant subject. I would however write some more text in order to call it an abstract.
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
Not relevant since only two lines of the abstract that has been written so far.
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
Based on the two lines, I would say the gramma and style is fine and nice to read. However difficult to "judge" based on two lines only :)
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
Only two lines written, but the subject is highly relevant, so if you manage to address it throughout the article, you'd do good.
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
Not relevant since only two lines is written.
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 references. Need to have references and reliable ones in order to improve.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Anna Shevchenko
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 abstract is obviously not completed. However, we can already see the main idea of this article. I would suggest to focus on describing tool in abstract and give short summary on key points of the article. Moreover, it is best to use same style of writing in a sentence, this way text will be easier to read.
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
It is hard to judge this article, since there are only few sentences written.
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
There are no grammatical and spelling errors. However, I would suggest to write shorter sentences in order to make it easier to read and understand.
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 yet. I would suggest to include at least one figure, as an example of WBS.
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 topic of this article has high practical relevance. However, it is impossible to judge the article itself based on so few sentences.
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
Work Breakdown Structure is a great topic, which will be interesting for a practitioner to read. I would suggest to focus on limitations and include relevant examples in the article.
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 are no references yet. I would suggest to include main references and to add bibliography with the summarized relevance of references to chosen topic. Furthermore, I would suggest to check the "PMI" Standards.
