View source for Talk:Belbin's Team Roles

==Feedback on Abstract==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Needs to be more elaborated
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| The purpose of the article is not quite clear
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| The topic is relevant but make sure you link it with project management and state how should it contribute/be relevant. Also, it is lacking a bit of context
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-

|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Amani Alabdullah''==
===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===
Not added yet

===Question 2 · TEXT===
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' 

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Somehow 

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? yes

What would you suggest to improve? -


===Question 3 · TEXT===
'''Grammar and style:''' 

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?-


===Question 4 · TEXT===
'''Figures and tables:''' 

Are figures and tables clear? yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? yes

What would you suggest to improve? -


===Question 5 · TEXT===
'''Interest and relevance:''' 

Is the article of high practical and/or academic relevance? Yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?  


===Question 6 · TEXT===
'''Depth of treatment:''' 

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.

What would you suggest to improve?-


===Question 7 · TEXT===
'''Annotated bibliography:''' 

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?-

What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.