View source for Talk:Modularity and Black-Boxing

'''Mette:''' 

I like this topic, however, I suggest you to make if clearly what you want to focus on with 'modularity' in this article and where the 'black-boxing' comes in. Remember to keep in mind the structure of a "method article".

'''S112910''':

The author gives a good introduction to the subject and clearly states why it was chosen and why it is relevant to project, program and portfolio management. 

The article seems to be of ''Type 1: Explanation and Illustration of a method'', since it mainly explains the method and does not include any case study, therefore it is recommended that the author stick to the suggested structure for "method" articles, mainly to get a read thread throughout the article. 

There are some minor issues with the grammar but the language of the text is overall fluent and understandable. 

A lot of terms are used throughout the article. For those reading the article who are not familiar with project, program and portfolio management and issues related to this matter, it could be a good idea to give a short definition of the used terms, an example of this could be “Product family architectures” which is mentioned in the article.

The “Design Structured Matrix” as a method for decomposing a product into standard designs, modules or platform is a good figure but it should be further explained and elaborated on since it stands kind of alone and it makes no sence to those who are not familiar with it. It would also be a good idea to equip your figures with a concise figure text and a reference.

There are two references in the “Annotated bibliography”, but they are not referenced in the text itself to indicate where exactly you have used them. How to do this can be found in the main page of the course at the bottom.

In the section “Modular Function deployment” you could use bullet points for the 5 tools.

The article does seem to be less than the 3000 words required for this task. However there are some under headings at the end of the article that seems to be very shortly mentioned that could be further elaborated on to fill out the article a littel more.

'''Reviewer 2: S131882'''

1. The topic is strongly related with Project, Program and Porfolio management. That make the article really useful for practitioners that have to deal with this kind of issues.

2. The text is written without major spelling and grammatical errors and it's understandable. The introduction is really helpful to let the reader know what the article will be about.

3. It is nice to know about the "Design structured matrix". However, people not familiar with the topic would appreciate a brief explanation how exactly works. 

4. All the parts of the article can be easily understood, but it  would be nice to have read threat.

5. The text has a clear division, but it should be formatted properly by following the guidelines for articles type 1.

6. It is nice to have some reference, but they should not be confused with the annotated bibliography. While the reference are the sources of your study, the annotated bibliography aims to suggest further reading for the lector. The annotated bibliography must go with a brief explanation of why it is recommended. Moreover, I think that it would be nice to state where you use the references in the text.

7. It really helps to have some images that make easier to understand the text. However, I would suggest you to mind its copyright. Therefore, state the source and, if necessary, the changes you have made.

8. Although Wikipedia is a good website to start with, you should consider to gather information from sources with a higher quality. Maybe you could consider some articles from DTU find it has the one that I found: ''Edwin D. Marion and Eric J. Riddleberger (1991). Modular project management'' (http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/15627515)


'''Reviewer username: s103128 (Martin Larsen) – Reviewer 1'''

Hello Author of Modularity and Black-boxing. I assume that your article is still a work in progress in this review. When that is said, I think you have the foundation for a great and interesting article! 

-Great introduction to both modularity and black-boxing. As a reader with little knowledge about these topics, I feel that I already understand the subject much better. It also inspires me to continue reading!

-Nice figures, which supports the text and topic really well. Remember that you can assign figure numbers and add figure text – it will also make it easier to make references to the figures in the text

-I like the structure and headlines of your article. I feel it will cover the subject well. I would suggest that you consider a “limitation” paragraph, as allows you to reflect critically on the topic.

-It is clear to me that the article follows the “method” approach. Remember to keep the guidelines for such an article in mind, but I think you can manage to follow them with the headlines you have at the moment. 
-I miss a link between the two main topics, why have you chosen to write about both of them? Or at least it is not clear to me why you have.

-I would suggest that you remove the very first part of your abstract, and try to catch the reader. Everyone on this site knows the course! Just do as you do in your introduction, much more interesting start if you ask me!

-If you don’t know where to put the focus in the article, I would suggest the “Techniques” part. It is a method article after all. The readers needs information about the subject, which you partly give (it could be a bit more detailed). But the reader also needs to know how to use those tools!
-Your language is in general fine, with minor mistakes. But hey, who doesn’t have minor mistakes at this point? However, sometimes I feel you use VERY short sentences, and sometimes several of them in a row. Try to balance them, and maybe mix longer and shorter sentences (in sequence) for momentum.  

-Overall, I think you are on the right track with your article. But I must also admit that it really needs more content. But if you fill out the paragraphs you have, you should be fine. I would like to see some more references, and not just Wikipedia articles! It will also be easier to write an annotated bibliography for non-wikipedia sources. 

Good luck with your article, /Martin