S154073 at 20:46, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T20:46:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 25 February 2019
Line 92:		Line 92:

	Anyways, I think you are on good way and the article seems pretty good. It is well written and kept me interested.		Anyways, I think you are on good way and the article seems pretty good. It is well written and kept me interested.




			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Johan Hilsøe==
			===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===
			Good introduction, but consider explaining what the article will describe rather than the background of the construction industry.


			===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 flow makes perfect sense. Missing the limitations section.

			===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===
			Well-written, might need a final review.

			===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===
			Good figures to support the article, but they could be described more - explain what figure 2-9 contain instead of just referring maybe.

			===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 relation to project management is clear. No comments :).

			===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===
			Good with an overview and then going more in depth.

			===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===
			Needs to be made :)

AJO: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Johannes Oschinsky''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== Review of the article: A Guide to Risk Management in Construction Projects '''Quality of the s..."

2019-02-25T14:39:45Z

Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Johannes Oschinsky''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== Review of the article: A Guide to Risk Management in Construction Projects '''Quality of the s..."

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Johannes Oschinsky''==
===Question 1 · TEXT===
Review of the article: A Guide to Risk Management in Construction Projects

'''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 Abstracts contains information that rises interest to read further. Hence, it states the goal of the thus the reader knows what the article is about and why its created. I do like it.

===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 is structured in a good way. One can follow the information order is aligned to the PMBOK Guide. The author takes time to explain how the article will be assembled. The information is build upon and one the order is logical. Going from an general view of the construction industry deeper into the methodology.
One suggestion of improvement is to put “:” behind the bold market words in section “Key Concepts” to keep the same structure. Hence, in this part does not stand where the information is coming from.

===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 Grammar and writing style are good. It is well written, and one can understand everything you say. Hence, it not a roman and you mention just the most important information.

===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 pictures support the content of the article in a good way. The article is about risk management in construction processes and not about for example “Perform Qualitative Risk Analysis”. It’s good that you put the picture in in case the reader wants to see more about that topic. For the article itself it is important to mention it but not describe in detail. As you did. Good work with labelling all pictures and put them in place.

===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 points out the relevance for example in the section “Abstract” and the article refers to in. It provides a guideline for managers to define and evaluated risk which it does in my point of view. For the first hand in it is a good work. But think about provide also the “Annotated Bibliography “. Hence think about pros and cons of the approach you suggest.
===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 provides a general overview of risk management in relation to the construction industry. I think it makes a good contribution to understand the methodology intertwining with the construction sector. As previously mentioned I would like to see pro’s and cons of the guide.

===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 implemented yet. A suggestion is to take at least the book” A guide to the project management body of knowledge.” And add it to the bibliography.

Anyways, I think you are on good way and the article seems pretty good. It is well written and kept me interested.

Talk:A Guide to Risk Management in Construction Projects - Revision history

S154073 at 20:46, 25 February 2019

AJO: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Johannes Oschinsky''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== Review of the article: A Guide to Risk Management in Construction Projects '''Quality of the s..."