Talk:Ideation tools - Revision history

S140234 at 21:33, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:33:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 19 February 2018
Line 87:		Line 87:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''There are missing references in the annotated bibliography and errors in the references part. The article does however make good use of references and citations in the arguments, as well as references to the historic background of ideation tools. The one reference in the annotated bibliography part is well described.''		''There are missing references in the annotated bibliography and errors in the references part. The article does however make good use of references and citations in the arguments, as well as references to the historic background of ideation tools. The one reference in the annotated bibliography part is well described.''


	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Christopher Emil Søndergaard''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Christopher Emil Søndergaard''==

2018-02-19T21:32:38Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 19 February 2018
Line 176:		Line 176:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''There is a good use of references. The reference list has some errors which is because of ~~you~~ use the same reference ~~several times~~.''		''There is a good use of references. The reference list has some errors which is because of the use (several times) of the same reference.''

	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

2018-02-19T21:31:43Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 19 February 2018
Line 162:		Line 162:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''As mentioned in answer to, I would like to know when to use the different tools.''		''As mentioned in answer 2, I would like to know when to use the different tools.''

	===Question 7===		===Question 7===

2018-02-19T21:31:08Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 19 February 2018
Line 126:		Line 126:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''Overall the article is well-written even though there are some minor grammatical errors. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but this is also a way to underline the important points.		''Overall the article is well-written even though there are some minor grammatical errors. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but this is also a way to underline the important points. In the section where you explain the different tools, an improvement could be to list the steps in another way which will make it more readable.''
	In the section where you explain the different tools, an improvement could be to list the steps in another way which will make it more readable.''

	===Question 4===		===Question 4===

2018-02-19T21:30:48Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 19 February 2018
Line 127:		Line 127:
	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''Overall the article is well-written even though there are some minor grammatical errors. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but this is also a way to underline the important points.		''Overall the article is well-written even though there are some minor grammatical errors. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but this is also a way to underline the important points.
	In the section where you explain the different tools, an improvement could be to list the steps in another way which is more readable.''		In the section where you explain the different tools, an improvement could be to list the steps in another way which will make it more readable.''

	===Question 4===		===Question 4===

2018-02-19T21:30:15Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, 19 February 2018
Line 114:		Line 114:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''Generally the article has a common thread which makes it readable. As an improvement you could compare the different tools by explaining when and why to use the tools. Is it a good idea to use all the tools or do some of them fit better in some situations?''		''Generally the article has a common thread which makes it readable. As an improvement you could compare the different tools by explaining when and why to use the tools. Is it a good idea to use all the tools at same time or do some of them fit better in some situations?''

	===Question 3===		===Question 3===

2018-02-19T21:29:38Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 19 February 2018
Line 177:		Line 177:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''There id a good use of references. The reference list has some errors which is because of ~~that~~ you use the same reference several times.''		''There is a good use of references. The reference list has some errors which is because of you use the same reference several times.''

	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

2018-02-19T21:29:16Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 19 February 2018
Line 163:		Line 163:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''''		''As mentioned in answer to, I would like to know when to use the different tools.''

	===Question 7===		===Question 7===

2018-02-19T21:27:39Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 19 February 2018
Line 151:		Line 151:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''''		''It is very clear why Ideation Tools has great importance in project management.''

	===Question 6===		===Question 6===

2018-02-19T21:25:55Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:25, 19 February 2018
Line 114:		Line 114:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~n general~~ the article ''		''Generally the article has a common thread which makes it readable. As an improvement you could compare the different tools by explaining when and why to use the tools. Is it a good idea to use all the tools or do some of them fit better in some situations?''

	===Question 3===		===Question 3===