Talk:Cost Control - Revision history

Tianhao at 10:44, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T10:44:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:44, 25 February 2019
Line 113:		Line 113:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''You have only 3 references yet which seems rather sparsely, so I would recommend you to find also other references. And your annotated bibliography is missing, just check the popular pages to see what is the best way to implement it. ''		''You have only 3 references yet which seems rather sparsely, so I would recommend you to find also other references. And your annotated bibliography is missing, just check the popular pages to see what is the best way to implement it. ''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Tianhao Chen''==
			===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===
			''Hi Tom. After reading your summary, I think it is very detailed and easy to understand what you want to talk about cost control. I think it is good enough for the introduction of this specific method used in cost control. But maybe you can separate it into two paragraphs, one for introduction of cost control and the other one for the explanation on this used method.''

			===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===
			'' Structure and logic of this article is very clear. You explain the cost control step by step generally. And different parts of the current article are basically connected. But in someplace, it is not that relevant in the topic. Also, the last two parts are missing''


			===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===
			''Basically no problems for the writing. But sometimes the words used are not that formal. And the separation of paragraphs is not good.''

			===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===
			''Actually there is no pictures in your article. You can try to organize some key steps in a graph and put it here to make the structure or the idea more clear.''

			===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 practical examples and the application in the real project is mentioned in this article which could strongly proves that its high practical relevance.''

			===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 is wise to just select one specific method and then get deep on this one. Just try to finish it in this road and fulfill the remain part.''

			===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 number of literature you give is only 3. You can apply more in the explanation of this principles of method. And the reference from websites could also be used.
			Annotated bibliography is missing.''

Tom Ruetgers: /* Answer 1 */

2019-02-23T21:59:29Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 23 February 2019
Line 32:		Line 32:
	cheerio, Tom		cheerio, Tom

	~~Let's go:~~ I like the summary, it is coherent and gives a nice overview over the article.		I like the summary, it is coherent and gives a nice overview over the article.''
	''

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

Tom Ruetgers: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-23T21:58:55Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 23 February 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	\|'''Other'''\|\| I'm not sure what you want to include in your article. You mention a lot of different methods so be careful not to make the article too broad		\|'''Other'''\|\| I'm not sure what you want to include in your article. You mention a lot of different methods so be careful not to make the article too broad
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Tom Ruetgers''==
			===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===
			''Hi Thomas, first of all: Overall, I really liked your article and didn't find that much to improve. However, I will try to look on your article from a different point of view and try to find something what you might adjust.
			But as you know, I am in the exact same position as you are right now, so I do not know what is "right or wrong". Thus, consider this feedback more as a recommendation than a valuation.
			cheerio, Tom

			Let's go: I like the summary, it is coherent and gives a nice overview over the article.
			''

			===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===
			''Yes, there is a red line through this article with a clear structure. Moreover,the transition between the parts are well formulated.
			I do not know how much you are going to add to the example - but it seems incomplete now. And the limitations are still missing.''

			===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 well writte and I only saw a very few spelling errors. In general you tend to formulate very long sentences, which makes it sometimes hard to get the essential from the sentence.
			Furthermore, your style of language switches sometimes during the article. A few sentences are very formal written and other are quite casual formulated. But that are just some really minor weaknesses.''

			===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===
			''Well, you have not added any picture or figures yet, but at three point you mention: ''in figure xxxxx". I think 2-3 picture, which illustrate the process and the context would upgrade your article.

			===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===
			''Yes, by mentioning the "big idea" and later on explaining the beneftis it really gets through why cost control is relevant ''

			===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===
			''Yes it seems quite deep diving into different techniques and highlights the practitionar approach by giving an example.''

			===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===
			''You have only 3 references yet which seems rather sparsely, so I would recommend you to find also other references. And your annotated bibliography is missing, just check the popular pages to see what is the best way to implement it. ''

Ebkh: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Not that clear |- |'''Language'''|| OK |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not clear what the article will ..."

2019-02-19T11:52:48Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Not that clear |- |'''Language'''|| OK |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not clear what the article will ..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Not that clear
|-
|'''Language'''|| OK
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not clear what the article will actually contain and what methods are just mentioned briefly
|-
|'''Purpose explanation'''|| OK
|-
|'''Title of the Wiki'''|| It is a broad titel and it looks like you focus on project management so you could write Cost Control in Project Management
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Other'''|| I'm not sure what you want to include in your article. You mention a lot of different methods so be careful not to make the article too broad
|}