View source for Talk:Project Management Success Factors

==Feedback on Abstract:==

Great to see your'e ahead of the game! Please find my feedback below:

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. read "Project management success may be defined as if an intersection of..." again). It could also be more concise.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Well elaborated.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Well elaborated.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Good references.
|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Julie Andersen''==
===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 good, but there are many long sentences and no breaks so it can make it a bit hard to read. It does make clarify the focus of the article, but I had to read the abstract three times to makes sure word information it gave.''

===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 article is very clear and the flow of the information is good, though I don't think the headlines match the sections well or at least they do not help the flow of the article(in my opinion). The article is very true to the abstract.''

===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 language is fine. In my opinion some refinement of sentences could help, but I don't see any actual mistakes. When PRINCE2 is desribed, the shortcut is explained twice right after each other.''

===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===
''I find the figure very helpfull and they do support the text very well.''

===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===
''We have project manager to ensure succes, so to define the factors of succes and the difference in project succes and project management succes is highly relevant. It is also of high practice relative to the length of the article. Maybe it could be relevant to include a section about how these informations are relevant for project managers or how they can use the information when managing.''

===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===
''It  does have a significant contributions beyond a cursory web search. The interest for a practioner will be higher if n explanation on how to use this information was a part of 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===
''The annotated bibliography is good.''