Talk:Feasibility Analysis - Revision history

S175507: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-19T18:00:32Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:00, 19 February 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:
	<li> Consider linking this to creating a business case?		<li> Consider linking this to creating a business case?
	</ol>		</ol>




			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Aksel Watson''==
			===Question 1 • TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''
			===Answer 1===
			'' The summary is very good, and get to the point quickly. It gives a good overview of what you are about to read and make the reader interested. There are a bit of grammatical and spelling mistakes that should be corrected. ''
			===Question 2 • TEXT===
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
			===Answer 2===
			'' The argument is good, and indicates the importance of feasibility studies within any industry. The part of the article that is written has a good flow, and shows step-by-step how to conduct a feasibility analysis to start with.''
			===Question 3 • TEXT===
			'''Grammar and style:'''
			===Answer 3===
			'' Very few grammatical errors. Read it through once more, and the last mistakes will be caught.''
			===Question 4 • TEXT===
			'''Figures and tables:''
			===Answer 4===
			'' The are no tables and figures.''
			===Question 5 • TEXT===
			'''Interest and relevance:'''
			===Answer 5===
			'' It is very academic relevant, since a feasibility study is relevant in many projects. Maybe you could write a an introduction for the process to show which type of projects need a feasibility and which does not.''
			===Question 6 • TEXT===
			'''Depth of treatment:'''
			===Answer 6===
			'' At the moment the article is very descriptive – but when the points are filled in, I think the article will be a good and contribute to what you find on the internet.''

			===Question 7 • TEXT===
			===Answer 7===
			''There is only one source, however this source is both relevant and denoted correctly in the text and in the end''

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-14T09:19:34Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 14 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Abstract Feedback=		==Abstract Feedback==

	'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent		'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent

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

2018-02-14T09:19:06Z

Abstract Feedback=

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 14 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=Abstract Feedback==		=Abstract Feedback=

	'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent		'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent

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

2018-02-14T09:18:52Z

Abstract Feedback=

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:18, 14 February 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:
	'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds"		'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds"

	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Okay, but ~~go back to basics. Define what scheduling is and make~~ references to ~~appropriate standards~~. The abstract ~~needs expansion~~		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Okay, but add references to increase credibility. The abstract can be expanded

	'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved:		'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved:

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "=Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" '''Description of the tool/theory/conce..."

2018-02-14T09:16:09Z

Created page with "=Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" '''Description of the tool/theory/conce..."

New page

=Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent

'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds"

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Okay, but go back to basics. Define what scheduling is and make references to appropriate standards. The abstract needs expansion

'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved:
<ol>
<li> Consider explaining the structure and content of the article to align reader expectations
</ol>

'''References''' Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

'''Relevance of article''' Good, but consider the following:

<ol>
<li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
<li> Try linking the topic to a project life cycle (check PMBOK)
<li> Consider linking this to creating a business case?
</ol>