Talk:Agile One Page Project Management - Revision history

Veronikabanko at 20:45, 26 February 2019

2019-02-26T20:45:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 26 February 2019
Line 100:		Line 100:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''It seems like everything is as it should be. Good job.''		''It seems like everything is as it should be. Good job.''

			==Feedback from Veronika==
			(Sorry for not aligning them with the questions, I just wrote down every thought I had with this article.)

			All in all I loved your article, it would have helped me a lot last semester if I knew about this agile one-pager! (We were working with SCRUM) So my thoughts about the article, that you could take into concideration when improving it for the final "hand-in":

			* Regarding the abstract I think it is better not to devide it into paragraphs.
			* The figures are too small – it would be awesome to see them so that you can visualize the text and align the described part to the picture at the same time.
			* I had a hard time figuring out if you are talking about a person or a progress in the very first sentence. ((”What is good project management? Some will say that good project management is one who gets the project done on time and on budget and has the ability to communicate project performance (scopes, timeliness and planned versus actual resources) and expectations to the team members and stakeholders.”))
			* I think it might be better not to use the term project owner instead of project manager before the agile method is introduced. It confused me, at least. :)
			* I think the product owner’s and the SCRUM master’s role are vica versa. So the SCRUM master is the one who knows the process of SCRUM, what needs to be organized and be done, and the product owner is who prioritizes the requirements that needs to be addressed because he acts like the owner of the future product so he know what he wants to be in the product. I will send you a quick guide about SCRUM to your dtu e-mail. :)
			* Also, it might be important to note that the product owner and SCRUM master are acting as team members as well during the whole development. * Those responsibities of them are just ”add-ons”, as far as I know. :)
			make it clear: is she/he a product owner or a project owner? You keep using both of them but as far as I know there is no such a role called ”project owner” (I might be wrong).
			* Maintenance – Step2: As it can be seen from Figure XX. Watch out, you forgot to change XX. You also have figure xx in step 3.

			In Limitations:
			* I think this section is a bit too much. At first it felt like it has so much limitation so it doesn’t even useful. :D But it turned out that you included other elements here as well which might be better placed somewhere else. For instance the 2. paragraph is more about its advantages, so I suggest to make an advantages/usefullness headline and list those their (same applies to the similarity measurement paragraphs).
			* This similarity measurement/comparision could be visualized too, but this is really just a luxurious plus.
			* Industrial use shouldn’t also be under limitations right? :)
			* But, the second (and at the same time last) paragraph of the Industrial use section should be under Limitations, as well as section Limitation should be the last section, after Industrial use.

			I hope my comments are valuable for you and help you make the article even better!

S183272: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Theodoros Seremetakis */

2019-02-25T17:04:28Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Theodoros Seremetakis

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 25 February 2019
Line 61:		Line 61:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The presented figures gives the reader a quick and good understanding of what is being explained in the article. Not too complex, not too simple.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 73:		Line 73:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 85:		Line 85:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The topic is relevant and interesting to read''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 99:		Line 99:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''It seems like everything is as it should be. Good job.''

S183272: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Theodoros Seremetakis */

2019-02-25T17:02:38Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Theodoros Seremetakis

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 25 February 2019
Line 21:		Line 21:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Before diving into the article's subject, the author introduces the reader to the concept, really good summary''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 37:		Line 37:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Overall the article is coherent and transparent.''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 49:		Line 49:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The author masters the langauge pretty well. Easy reading.''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

S183272: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T17:00:06Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:00, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good references.		\|'''References'''\|\| Good references.
	\|}		\|}
			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Theodoros Seremetakis''==
			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-18T22:02:21Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 18 February 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	{\|		{\|
	\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| The text is ~~very coherent~~.		\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| The text is okay, however there's a few grammatical errors.
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| ~~Very good~~.		\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Good. However, a short description of "Agile One Page Project Management" would be beneficial.
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Article purpose explanation'''\|\| ~~Missing~~. ~~Keep up the good work and make sure~~ to ~~include an explanation of the~~ article ~~purpose~~.		\|'''Article purpose explanation'''\|\| Well elaborated. However, do you have permission to mention "LEO Pharma A/S" in your article? Best practice is just to mention "based on a pharmaceutical company/pharmaceutical industry."
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant		\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''References'''\|\| ~~Add some~~ references ~~in your abstract, if needed~~.		\|'''References'''\|\| Good references.
	\|}		\|}

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-18T21:53:42Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 18 February 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	{\|		{\|
	\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| The text is ~~good, but there's quite a few grammatical mistakes~~.		\|'''Text clarity & language'''\|\| The text is very coherent.
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| ~~Good, but a short description of Agile One Page Project Management can be added~~. ~~Also, do you have permission to include LEO Pharma A/S? It's best practice to just mention "a healthcare company."~~		\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Very good.
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Article purpose explanation'''\|\| ~~Good~~		\|'''Article purpose explanation'''\|\| Missing. Keep up the good work and make sure to include an explanation of the article purpose.
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant		\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''References'''\|\| ~~Good~~ references		\|'''References'''\|\| Add some references in your abstract, if needed.
	\|}		\|}

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-18T21:48:12Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 18 February 2019
Line 9:		Line 9:
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant		\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant
	\|-
	~~\|'''Meaningful contribution'''\|\| Good~~
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good references		\|'''References'''\|\| Good references
	\|}		\|}

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-18T21:36:37Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 18 February 2019
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Good, but a short description of Agile One Page Project Management can be added. Also, do you have permission to include LEO Pharma A/S? It's best practice to just mention "a healthcare company."		\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Good, but a short description of Agile One Page Project Management can be added. Also, do you have permission to include LEO Pharma A/S? It's best practice to just mention "a healthcare company."
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''~~Explanation of the~~ purpose ~~of the article~~'''\|\| Good		\|'''Article purpose explanation'''\|\| Good
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant		\|'''Relevance to curriculum '''\|\| Relevant

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, but there's quite a few grammatical mistakes. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''..."

2019-02-18T21:36:14Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, but there's quite a few grammatical mistakes. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, but there's quite a few grammatical mistakes.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good, but a short description of Agile One Page Project Management can be added. Also, do you have permission to include LEO Pharma A/S? It's best practice to just mention "a healthcare company."
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant
|-
|'''Meaningful contribution'''|| Good
|-
|'''References'''|| Good references
|}