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>
* I understand your point of view, my intention was to quickly introduce the concept and develop it further in the article. But I agree with you that some definitions were a little repetitive. I found some redundant sentences that have been deleted so I hope it does not look that repetitive now. Good suggestion. 
•	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>
* In my opinion this might be a good idea if the only topic in this report was XPM. However, my intention for this article was to "briefly" describe what XPM are and afterwards focusing more on Rapid Methods to manage them. 
•	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.