View source for Talk:Risk Log

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, but can be much more coherent. There's a few grammatical errors. The abstract still needs to be finalized.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| This can be improved. The abstract needs to be further elaborated. Risk log is not even mentioned. It needs to be mentioned and explained.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Missing. In addition to the point above, the purpose of the article and eventual target group needs to be highlighted. The purpose should be easily understood from reading the abstract.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant.
|-
|'''References'''|| Add some of the listed references (on DTU Inside) in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so. Make sure to reference throughout the entire article.
|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Pedro Cunha''==
===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 summary has a good contextualization and it is transparent. The references must be corrected. The sentences needs to be in accordance and gramarly corrected. Long sentences and capital leters must be avoided. 
===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 argument is clear, and the article purpose can be perfectly understandable . There's a lack/poor logical flow of contents in the article. Repeating informations along the article must be avoided. 

===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===

Some sentences are confuse and too concise - review the english and the subject needs to explored and explained deeper, add some examples for instance. Check grammar 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===
Figures and tables are clear, but they need better explanations, references and captions. Make own tables to summarize the content of the article can help a better understanding for the reader. 

===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 and the theme is interesting, has strong academic relevance, and it is clear in the text why. As it is said in the abstract all the projects are exposed to a certain level of uncertainty and the managers need support to overcome the obstacles - these articles can play a big role in helping the managers. 

===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===
Like said above, the article has a strong real life application and for this reason should be further developed deeper. At the moment doesn't add any value to what can be found online. 

===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 conclusion must be finished, must conclude and summarize all the key points from all the article.

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Rasmine Søgren''==

===Question 1 ===
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 summary are very good

===Question 2===
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: I think that the article has a good point, and the article have a good structure

===Question 3===
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 good, but there are a few capital letters in between.

===Question 4===
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: You have some errors with som references in the text and you miss one figure text.

===Question 5===
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 level of the article is good

===Question 6===
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 level of the article is good, but maybe you can work a bit on your conclusion.

===Question 7===
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: As mentioned earlier, you have a few reference errors