View source for Talk:Project Schedule development

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Oliver Adam Mølskov Bech''==
===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 itself is missing, however, I have taken the section called 2. Motivation into account when answering your summary. The motivation states some of the reasons as to why Project Schedule Development is an important management concept however it does not concisely describe the key focus of the article and/or what the article will contribute to in terms of explaining the concept.''

===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 in terms of introducing the overarching term, project time management, for which PSD falls under. The article then continues logically by delving deeper into PSD. However, it is slightly unclear as to what direction and what topics of PSD will be discussed in the future. The article is so far consistent in its argument and free of contradictions. I would recommend splitting the table of contents into more sub-topics to provide the reader with a higher degree of clarity as to what the article will discuss, thereby making it easier for the reader to navigate through whatever material may be relevant to them.''

===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===
''The writing contains several grammatical errors. Grammatical errors lead to an inconsistent reading flow for the reader. The language is fairly precise however be careful with the use of unnecessary adjectives. Here is a list of some possible errors and suggestions for improvement:
*Refer to "projects" or "a project" rather than "the project". E.g. Under 2. Motivation, the last sentence says "potential costs of the project", what project is this you are referring to?
*Example of a sentence containing grammatical errors: "At last but not the least,PSD implemented correctly...."
*Be consistent in your syntax, are you going to insert a reference immediately after a word or after a symbol (.,). Refer to your first reference and compare to second reference for an example. Consistency in your syntax will make your article appear more professional. 
*Again, there is no consistency in your tables under section 3.2, some bullet point sentences end with a full stop "." while others don't.
*Also, the term "Schedule Development" always uses Title Case syntax within your text, I would recommend moving away from this as it is not good formatting.
*"1. Inputs" is inserted within the framed box while "2. Tools and Techniques" and "3. Outputs" is framed outside their respective boxes.
*Consider using italic font for your points to allow the reader to more easily distinguish between "terms" and "term descriptions".
*Under 3.2 Schedule Development, 1. Inputs, 1.6. Constrains - do you mean "Constraints"? The word constrains is used again later on, please double check this.
*Consider using bullet points using the asterix symbol, such as for parts like the limitations section where you have used a numbering system.''

===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===
''The use of figures and tables are relatively clear. Figure 1 provides a good overview of the project time management concept and its link to schedule development. Under section 3.2 I think the sub-topics: "1. Inputs, 2. Tools and Techniques, etc" could be formalised in a more concise manner. When reading on a MAC the "2. Tools and Techniques" table contents extend beyond the boundaries of the frame. I am expecting more figures to support your discussion of project schedule development as so far there is one figure.''

===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===
''Yes, the article has high practical relevance to individuals with a vested interest in the time management and scheduling developments of projects. The motivation section discusses the importance of the topic and the benefits to developing a successful project schedule. Perhaps it would be more academically relevant if a wider body of references were used, such as for example ISO standards.''

===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 mostly relevant to a practitioner.It does contribute beyond a cursory web search using relevant references to the PMBOK guide. I would suggest delving deeper into some of the complexities of project schedule development to make the article useful to both practitioners and academics.''

===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 uses appropriate referencing, perhaps some references are missing in the "Motivation" section? The key references have not been summarized in a bibliography yet. I suggest expanding your research to include a wider range of academic perspectives on the topic. Also, researching ISO guidelines in terms of time management and schedule development may be interesting.''

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Sarah Romane Bourdiaux Terp''==
===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===
''As the summary has not been written yet, I will review the motivation section. The motivation section contains some of the main reasons for applying PSD, which is good when catching the reader's attention, however, it would be nice if you could also specify who the intended reader is and what the purpose of the article is. This could however also be done in the abstract. I would also finish the motivation section in a more "open" way leading up to the next section about Project Time Management. It seems a bit abrupt as the latter has not yet been introduced in your article. This would give a nice and natural flow, guiding the reader through the "story" you are telling.''

===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===
''So far there is a good flow in the article and it is a very good idea starting by defining Project Time Management, which is the overall area within which PSD is relevant. As a reader, I am however lacking the purpose of why I am reading the article and where it is heading to. I would try to concretize the article in the beginning, as I mentioned, and then ensure the red thread is held throughout the article. It can also be a help when writing to have a clear idea of who this article is addressing. Then, I would ensure to break down the article even more, both for the reader's sake but also because it is much easier to break it down in smaller parts and writing them one by one. Having a visual idea of your article's "skeleton" can be very helpful.''

===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===
''The language is clear, however regarding the grammar and style there is room for improvement. Much of it can be improved by proof reading thoroughly and several times in the end, however there are some repetitive errors. 
A main concern is the use of determiners (a, an, the etc.). Sometimes you forget to write them and sometimes you use "the" instead of "a", for example when you mention projects. As you are not writing about a specific project, remember to use "the" as determiner. In the abstract, you write "First of all, it provides in structure way...", where you forget a determiner before "structured way". It would thus be "First of all, it provides in a structured way...". I would spend some time checking for this type of error, because even if it seems like a little mistake here and there, it adds up in the end and it makes the overall flow of the article a bit uneven. Also, be careful to not forget a space after using a comma or a dot.''

===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===
''It is very nice with a visual overview of Project Time Management. You use the figure well and refer to it. However, I would maybe look into the grey box as it contains a lot of information in small letters and it can be a bit hard to read. It would be nice with more figures as it really helps the reader with a visual overview of what is written.''

===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 is of very high practical relevance as it provides clear and hands-on details to why and how PSD is relevant in project management. I would suggest using one or two more standards as references as well, as they often differ a bit and it can be very interesting from an academical point of view to see different takes on the same subject. It would also support your article's practical relevance even more.''

===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 is very relevant for a practitioner but I would add a few more and different references to make it more relevant academically as well. It surely has the potential to make more contribution beyond a cursory web search and I look forward to reading it again when it is finished. My main suggestion would be to ensure that there is red thread throughout the article and make sure that the reader is onboard the whole way through.''

===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===
''For now there is no annotated bibliography, but the PMBOK® Guide is used appropriately and diligently. It is thus very much based on empirical data and not just on opinion but I would suggest, as mentioned, to investigate other relevant references and standards further.The article cites properly but remember that if you use web pages, you have to discuss the credibility of these as well.''