View source for Talk:Scrum vs. Waterfall Methodology

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity'''	Text is good, but needs expansion

'''Language'''	        Minor errors e.g. writing "showed" when "shown" is meant. Avoid first person narrative

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''	Go back to basics, and briefly explain what scrum and waterfall is in one line. The abstract needs expansion

'''Purpose explanation'''	Good, but needs development. Consider:

<ol>
  <li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?
  <li> Are you focusing on a particular industry or is this more generic?
</ol>

'''References'''	        Good references, but make sure to add them in the "references" section. Try to find if the methods in your article are related with the standards, if not find relevant literature

'''Relevance of article'''      Consider the following:

<ol>
  <li> Scrum is usually referred to in IT projects, whereas Agile is used more generically
  <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
</ol>



==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Gustavo Pagliari Valerio dos Santos''==
===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 is still to be uploaded to the page. Based in the points raised in the Abstract so far, the objective of the article is clear, even though it needs further development of the first description.''

===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 first draft of the article's outline indicate a potentially well-connected structure. The article itself is to be uploaded to the page.''

===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 article is to be uploaded to the page.''

===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 article is to be uploaded to the page.''

===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 chosen topic has high academic relevance, and can also be applicable in practice if the explanation in article is well articulated. The article itself is still to be uploaded to the page.''

===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 to be uploaded to the page.''

===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 annotated bibliography has not been uploaded. The bibliography added to the page so far features good technical level, as it includes academic references, as well as international codes. The same characteristic shall be followed for further referencing to be added.''