S190035 at 22:21, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T22:21:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 25 February 2019
Line 4:		Line 4:

	(click on the edit tab to see the code for this)		(click on the edit tab to see the code for this)


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Durant Mangum''==
			===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===
			''I really enjoyed reading your summary and thought it was brief but also descriptive of 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===
			''The article follows a logical break down, just needs more I feel. ''

			===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===
			''Grammar was fine! "''

			===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===
			''No tables and figures, but that is okay, I am sure you are working on them now!”
			===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===
			''It seems relevant to project management because being a leader and understanding how people’s emotions affect their job and performance is of crucial importance''

			===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===
			''I would really have enjoyed a guide on how exactly I could use the interesting information on emotion.'

			===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===
			"I am sure you will add one.''

Mercedes Hachmann at 21:53, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T21:53:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 25 February 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	use <ref>put_your_reference_here</ref> for references and then just put <references/> under the references tab :)		use <ref>put_your_reference_here</ref> for references and then just put <references/> under the references tab :)

			(click on the edit tab to see the code for this)

Mercedes Hachmann: Created page with "The writing is good and easy to read and understand. use put_your_reference_here for references and then just put under the references tab :)"

2019-02-25T21:53:18Z

Created page with "The writing is good and easy to read and understand. use <ref>put_your_reference_here</ref> for references and then just put <references/> under the references tab :)"

New page

The writing is good and easy to read and understand.

use <ref>put_your_reference_here</ref> for references and then just put <references/> under the references tab :)

Talk:Emotional Intelligence as a tool for Project Managers - Revision history

S190035 at 22:21, 25 February 2019

Mercedes Hachmann at 21:53, 25 February 2019

Mercedes Hachmann: Created page with "The writing is good and easy to read and understand. use put_your_reference_here for references and then just put under the references tab :)"