Talk:Milestones in Project Planning - Revision history

Rasmusbjerg: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg */

2019-02-25T10:56:36Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:56, 25 February 2019
Line 51:		Line 51:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===I could'nt find any errors~~. ===~~		===Answer 3 ===
	~~''Answer here~~''		''I could'nt find any errors''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

Rasmusbjerg: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T08:13:39Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:13, 25 February 2019
Line 102:		Line 102:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Annotated bibliography yet''		''also no Annotated bibliography yet''

Rasmusbjerg: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg */

2019-02-25T08:13:14Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:13, 25 February 2019
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''There's only an abstract, so this peer review is hard to do, but, the key focus is clear. It would maybe not write so much about what a milestone is in the abstract.''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 40:		Line 40:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Logic is pretty clear. Good build up in the abstract ''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 51:		Line 51:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~Answer 3~~===		===I could'nt find any errors. ===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

Line 64:		Line 64:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''There are no figures or tabels yet''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 76:		Line 76:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''hard to determine with only the abstract''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 88:		Line 88:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''same as answer 5.''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 102:		Line 102:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Annotated bibliography yet''

Rasmusbjerg: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sarantis Pavlidis */

2019-02-25T08:05:38Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sarantis Pavlidis

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 25 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:


	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Sarantis Pavlidis~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Bjerg''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Rasmusbjerg: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T08:05:20Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good		\|'''References'''\|\| Good
	\|}		\|}



			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Sarantis Pavlidis''==
			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

Raquel Valente: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good but could be more coherent in some parts |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Art..."

2019-02-19T09:23:22Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good but could be more coherent in some parts |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Art..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good but could be more coherent in some parts
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Good
|}