View source for Talk:Basic estimation techniques

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is okay, however there's a few grammatical errors (e.g. "a manager has to achieve specific object within...").
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good. Perhaps include a definition of what estimation is?
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Very good.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Ensure to include references wherever needed.
|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Andrea Könnecke''== 
===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?
Add summary before table of contents or add abstract/introduction chapter after table of content
===Answer 1===
'' The Abstract (Summary) gives a really good overview about the topic itself, the structure of the article and the connection to PPPM. Probably the text can be read easier when you write the questions (in italic) blow each other (use < b r / > )''
''NB: I think resources covers time and money as well, so you could write “a manager has to achieve specific objects within the project resources such as time and budget” or similar. ''

===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 logical flow of the article is very good as each technique (for now: three out of six) is described shortly, including advantages and application examples. The techniques are framed with an abstract, a general guideline (but without further text) and critique (only keypoints, but sounds promising) which is really good.''
''The structure of each technique text could be improved by using subchapters (Advantages, Application), bolt words (as titles) or italic text.''

===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===
'' Overall, the grammar and spelling is good. But sometimes sentences are hard to read as they are long and consist of many subordinate clause; sometimes it’s better to put a full stop than a comma. There is a spelling mistake in figure 1.    ''

===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===
'' Both figures implemented in the article helps to better understand the key points of the article. However, there is a typo in figure 1 and fIgure 2 has an invalid cite tag. Try to use more figures as you are describing several tools  makes it easier to not get confused''

===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===
'' As stated in the abstract, estimating is important for the planning/execution of a project. Knowing these techniques are therefore of practical and academic relevance. ’’

===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===
'' As stated above, the topic is relevant and therefore interesting to read. It includes all relevant techniques at a glance and mentions critique. <br /> But as the author describes six different techniques, there is a risk of a superficial writing. In order to avoid this, you could mention all techniques (framing in a big picture) but focus on one or two based on logical criteria ''

===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 annotated bibliography included in the article --> don’t forget to include it. <br/> The references in general looks okay. There is no clear citiation style (I think they want the Vancouver style); one cite error and an internet link without access date, author etc''

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
===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''