Talk:Due Diligence on Wind Farm Assets - Revision history

S182299: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T21:10:54Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:10, 25 February 2019
Line 186:		Line 186:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		References need to be added properly

2019-02-25T21:09:20Z

Question 7 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 25 February 2019
Line 177:		Line 177:
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?		Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2019-02-25T21:07:48Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 25 February 2019
Line 148:		Line 148:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added. The figure that already exists is really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the ~~subject~~ better, but a reference needs to be added.		It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added. The figure that already exists is really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the risks better, but a reference needs to be added.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

2019-02-25T21:06:56Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 25 February 2019
Line 172:		Line 172:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would suggest to add a framework on stakeholder and managerial role

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

2019-02-25T20:54:09Z

Question 6 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:54, 25 February 2019
Line 165:		Line 165:
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?		Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2019-02-25T20:52:21Z

Answer 5

2019-02-25T20:51:41Z

Question 5 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 25 February 2019
Line 153:		Line 153:
	'''Interest and relevance:'''		'''Interest and relevance:'''

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

2019-02-25T20:50:41Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:50, 25 February 2019
Line 148:		Line 148:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added		It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added. The figure that already exists is really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the subject better, but a reference needs to be added.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

2019-02-25T20:47:51Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 25 February 2019
Line 148:		Line 148:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

2019-02-25T20:46:35Z

Question 4 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:46, 25 February 2019
Line 141:		Line 141:
	'''Figures and tables:'''		'''Figures and tables:'''

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear? Yes

	Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?		Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Mostly

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?