View source for Talk:Manage Extreme Projects with Rapid Methodology

== Review given by StephSalling, review2 ==
==== Formal aspects ==== 
* The article follows the “method” structure very well. 
** ✓
* There are some grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, maybe an extra proofreading would be a good idea (maybe by someone else, it is often helpful having a second pair of eyes read it through).
** I have to say that I absolutely agree with you. After extra proofreading I made same changes that, I think, made the text more understandable and easier to follow.
* The article is written in an engaging style in terms of content, but some sentences are a bit long and hard to follow.
** Same I said above applies here :)
* The figure is very illustrative, but a reference to the source for it might be a good idea. More figures would improve the reading experience, but I do not know if it is possible to find other relevant figures.
** I drew the figure myself but I was inspired from DeCarlo's book so as you said it is a good idea to reference it. I also added a new figure to illustrate the uncertainty explained in the second section. Good suggestion.
* Very nice use of table and bullet points.

==== Content aspects ==== 
* I think the article is interesting for a practitioner.
* The topic is clear and specific. 
* The length of the article seems appropriate.

* There is a red thread through the article, however, the transition from XPM to Rapid Methodology could be smoother.
** I don't exactly know what you mean by "red thread" but I tried to make a more smoother transition with a short introduction.
* The starting summary is sufficient and not too long.
** ✓
* Your sources seem good and of high quality. You could maybe elaborate some of them (the “annotated bibliography” part).
** ✓ I forgot to annotate the bibliography like the assignment says, thank you for telling!
* The use of the word “we” in some sentences is a bit confusing for me as it mixes up your “own opinion” with statements substantiated by literature.
** ✓ Even though I only found one "we" you are right, it sounded a little confusing so I rewrite not only this sentence but also other statements that sounded own opinion while were not. Thank you for the constructive feedback.

== Reviewer 3: s141586 ==

In general, very good article with an interesting topic and good flow, but needs improvement.<br><br>
Formal:<br>
•	The article follows a clear “method” structure. <br>
•	In general, too long sentences. I have detected many grammatical errors, needs proofreading. <br>
* As I said to the reviewer 1, I have to say that you are also absolutely right. After extra proofreading I made same changes that, I think, made the text more understandable and easy to follow. Regarding the grammatical errors, I found some misspelling and mismatching between verb and subject. Hope it looks better now.
•	The use of the form “we” it does not sounds very good in an academic article, I would rather use the passive form to express the same (Overview section) <br>
* This was also suggested for reviewer one, and I agree with you both. The sentence has been rewritten.
•	Well-referenced and good use of quotes from authors. <br>
•	Some more figures would be useful<br>
* ✓
•	Well formatted. Wiki references. <br><br>

Content: <br>
•	It is a very interesting topic for a practitioner, but I have the feeling that some of the statements are being repeated in too many paragraphs (specially the ones defining the XPM). <br>
•	The length seems to be ok, even that is around 2500 words. It has a good flow. <br>
*✓ After your suggestions some text has been added so now it is nearly 3000.
•	I miss a “limitations” paragraph, were you explain the weaknesses of the XPM or when to apply it. <br>
* The limitations where kind of defined in the discussion but maybe not developed enough. I rewrote this section and I believe that now the limitations are more detailed. Good suggestion. 
•	In general, I think it is a good idea to find some examples of XPM projects, and explain a little about one or two cases. <br>
•	I think it would be good to describe each of the sources with few lines, explaining about the paper and the author. <br>
* ✓ I forgot to annotate the bibliography like the assignment says, thank you for telling!
•	It is hard to distinguish between your opinion and the theory; maybe you should clarify it in the discussion section. <br><br>
* Good point. I hope that the changes made improved this aspect.


S141926. Thank you both for your constructive and clear reviews. They have been very useful to improve the article.