View source for Talk:Adaptive Project Management

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Srdjan Gluhovic''==
===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 provides the reader with a good and consistent overview of what the article is about. The method is well described and relates to the general topic. A suggestion will be to include the necessary references in the abstract.

===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 has a logical flow with a clear definition of each of the section. The different sections make it easy for the reader to separate the content in each section. One part builds upon the other one in the phases of approach. Since the article is not entirely ready no further comments, keep up the good work.

===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===
I did notice some grammatical errors in the text, and I would suggest running the article through a spelling check program like Grammarly. Otherwise, the sections do not have unnecessary fill words.

===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===
There is no figures or tables represented in this article, but I can see that the figure text is already added in the article which indicates that the figures is not inserted yet.

===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===
The article has academic relevance of adaptive project management and how to improve decisions and practices during the project life cycle which also refers to the practical importance. It is also clear how adaptive project management is relevant.

===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===
The article is interesting as it describes the purpose and approach of Adaptive Project Management. It represents the five phases of the project life cycle which is an essential aspect. A suggestion would be to include the limitation section and explained what is complicated about this method. Since the article is not finished, it is difficult to give further suggestion other than to complete the rest and make sure everything fits together.

===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 article does not have an Annotated bibliography section that cites previous work because the article is not entirely completed. The suggestions will be to create an Annotated bibliography and create references to the different section parts and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.



----


===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===

Generally, the abstract is neat and nice. It would be great with one or two quotes or citations from a standard or relevant litterature to underline the statements.


===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===

You already briefly mention the opportunities from this managerial approach, but what are the limitations or risks of running a project using these techniques?


===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===

I think the text is easy to read and understand, not many unneccessary fillers or gramatical errors. 


===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 would suggest to use some more pictures ;-)


===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===

It's describing its purpose and all, but its not really exhilarating - convincing the reader of this method, as being the shit. 


===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===

I believe it will be, when its finished. 

===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===

Not yet.