Talk:Business Case - Revision history

Briet at 13:18, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T13:18:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:18, 19 February 2018
Line 128:		Line 128:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	The abstract is clear and concise. It's clear what the main focus of the article will be. However, I think the flow between sentences could be improved, e.g. you start many sentences in the abstract with "The Business Case". I would recommend that you change that in order to create a ~~clear~~ flow.		The abstract is clear and concise. It's clear what the main focus of the article will be. However, I think the flow between sentences could be improved, e.g. you start many sentences in the abstract with "The Business Case". I would recommend that you change that in order to create a better flow.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===

Briet at 13:16, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T13:16:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 19 February 2018
Line 156:		Line 156:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
			There are some grammatical and spelling errors. See here below:

			"The definitions of Business Case are discussed with its limitiations." -> "The definitions of a Business Case are discussed with its limitations."

			"The Business Case is evaluated through a cost benefit analysis" -> "The Business Case is evaluated through a cost-benefit analysis"

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 168:		Line 172:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
			There are only youtube clips and no figures. I'm sure you will add some figures later, I would recommend that. Regarding the youtube clips, I'm not sure if you should have four youtube clips, maybe one or two are enough. They are nice and informative but I think you can write some of this information yourself in the article and then create pictures to support your writing.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 180:		Line 184:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
			According to the headings, it seems to be very relevant. However, it's difficult to say at this point due to the current state of the article.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 192:		Line 196:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
			It's difficult to say at this point due to the current state of the article.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 206:		Line 210:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
			There are currently two references which are very relevant, properly cited and acknowledged. I would suggest for the rest of the article that you try to use the mandatory references if they are applicable. You can look into the PMBOK and see if there is something relevant there for your article.

Briet at 12:37, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T12:37:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 19 February 2018
Line 128:		Line 128:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
			The abstract is clear and concise. It's clear what the main focus of the article will be. However, I think the flow between sentences could be improved, e.g. you start many sentences in the abstract with "The Business Case". I would recommend that you change that in order to create a clear flow.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 144:		Line 144:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
			From the headings that you've created, the logical flow of the article seems to be very clear and it builds up through the article. The only thing that I would suggest is to create a special heading "Application" and the heading "Relevant Tools" to be a sub-heading in that section, just so it's clear that you will discuss the application of the tools in this section.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===

Briet at 11:36, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T11:36:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:36, 19 February 2018
Line 117:		Line 117:
	*Use the youtube clips, but argue about their credibility		*Use the youtube clips, but argue about their credibility
	*Try to look in the PMBOK		*Try to look in the PMBOK

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Briet''==
			'''Note: since the article only contains abstract and empty headings, I will focus on what is there and recommendations :)'''
			===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===


			===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===


			===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===


			===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===


			===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===


			===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===


			===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===

JonasHL: /* Answer 7 */

2018-02-17T11:30:18Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:30, 17 February 2018
Line 112:		Line 112:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~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?~~

	The article uses citation of other material, however, only 2 references are used		The article uses citation of other material, however, only 2 references are used
	Consider the following:		Consider the following:
	*Find more sources and articles		*Find more sources and articles
	*Use the youtube clips, but argue about their credibility		*Use the youtube clips, but argue about their credibility
			*Try to look in the PMBOK

JonasHL: /* Answer 7 */

2018-02-17T11:28:37Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 17 February 2018
Line 112:		Line 112:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		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?

			The article uses citation of other material, however, only 2 references are used
			Consider the following:
			*Find more sources and articles
			*Use the youtube clips, but argue about their credibility

JonasHL: /* Answer 6 */

2018-02-17T11:24:45Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 17 February 2018
Line 98:		Line 98:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Can not be answered until more text is added to the article.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===

JonasHL: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-17T11:23:18Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 17 February 2018
Line 85:		Line 85:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Hard to answer because of the articles current state :)
			However, make sure to state why and how Busines Case is relevant in a project management context.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

JonasHL: /* Answer 2 */

2018-02-17T11:21:22Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:21, 17 February 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~		As I can see on the headings you have entered, the flow of the article will be logical. Consider the following:
			*Discuss advantages and limitations
			*Specific stating what can be applied in the real word
			*Adding a conclusion

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===

JonasHL: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonas */

2018-02-17T11:17:58Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonas

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:17, 17 February 2018
Line 14:		Line 14:

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Jonas''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Jonas''==
	'''Note: since the article only contains abstract and headings, I will focus on what is there and recommendations :)'''		'''Note: since the article only contains abstract and empty headings, I will focus on what is there and recommendations :)'''
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''