Talk:Project Initiation Management in construction - Revision history

S152736 at 20:36, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T20:36:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:36, 25 February 2019
Line 123:		Line 123:


	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''~~write your name here~~''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Mark Christiansen''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 132:		Line 132:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	'~~'Answer here''~~		The summary makes it very clear, what the article is about. You make it clear that there are a lot of good reasons why this is a very important process. Is it maybe possible to make it even more clear why it's interesting to read YOUR article and not only go through the standards. Maybe you could simply point out one thing that you find most interesting just to try to make it personal and to connect with the reader.

			But very good, I just wanted to give something :)

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 148:		Line 150:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	'~~'Answer here''~~
			I like the sequence through the article. The sections make sense and it seems very natural. Except one thing, but i am not entirely sure if I am right or wrong, but take to consideration if it's the right thing to start subsections with quotations or bullet without just a very brief intro.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 160:		Line 163:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	'~~'Answer here''~~		I am no pro proofreading grammar, but seems very well written, at least I would have cached if major errors where present. I didn't get the feeling that words where just in there for volume. The sections are very precise written.

			No recommendations :-)

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 172:		Line 177:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	'~~'Answer here''~~		I really like how you builds the the article upon the figures. They are not just in there because you want to check mark having figures. This really makes the article coherent.

			I really didn't expect figure 3 to be about stakeholders. I wounder if this is the best illustration for stakeholder management, but on the other hand you really explain it well, but that was just my first impression.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 184:		Line 191:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article is highly relevant, I totally agree with the importance of project initiation processes, and you make several arguments for its relevance.

			As mentioned earlier, I would try to underline a thing or two that stands out from the rest that you believe is most interesting.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 196:		Line 205:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	'~~'Answer here''~~		I think you have written the article so that it's easy and interesting to go through if the reader survives the big section with purely quotations :-)

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 210:		Line 219:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Very well done, I will for sure look at your practice when I get to the point where I have to do references with my article.

			For sure no recommendations :-)

WhyLoseTime at 18:08, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:08:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 25 February 2019
Line 77:		Line 77:

	1. It seems a good article for someone to get to know what the term 'Project Initiation' is about		1. It seems a good article for someone to get to know what the term 'Project Initiation' is about

	2. I cannot see any particularly highlighted management tips or advice in the article, despite the word management in the title		2. I cannot see any particularly highlighted management tips or advice in the article, despite the word management in the title

	3. (After carefully reading the whole article) I cannot readily see how someone from the construction industry can pick up this article, read it and then go 'OK, so I need to do this (whatever thing) whereby I get this (a given) benefit'. ''		3. (After carefully reading the whole article) I cannot readily see how someone from the construction industry can pick up this article, read it and then go 'OK, so I need to do this (whatever thing) whereby I get this (a given) benefit'. ''

Line 109:		Line 111:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer~~ here''		''References and citations are very good and thorough.

			Empirical foundations ensure that text is not opinionated.

			No improvements necessary here. Good job! :)
			''

WhyLoseTime: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Martin Kirk''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of th..."

2019-02-25T18:01:52Z

Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Martin Kirk''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of th..."

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Martin Kirk''==
===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===
''The abstract successfully mentions the overall topic and describes most of the sub-topics / points made in the article.
A key improvement could be to very clearly mention which headline insight (one thing) the article seeks to bring. Think: what problem does this article try to solve?''

===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===
''Individual arguments are somewhat clear. However, the high overall number of arguments clouds the article focus.
This unfortunately also means that there is no flow in which sections build on top of each other to finish with one accumulated key point.
Instead it feels like an increasingly growing snowball of terms, the size of which made me as a reader fear the overall topic in sheer overwhelmingness.

The article is however consistent and there are no contradictions.

Suggested improvements would be:
- Organisation of points: try to organise the points you wish to make in a way that gives the user a complete overview of all of them in one place, e.g. a list.
- Reduction of points: With the current amount of points, it is 98% gathering of other people's work and only a 2% hint of the insight you personally wish to bring in the article
- Following through the article red thread: the headline suggests you want to educate the construction industry on the topic, and your abstract also says this, but where is this insight at the end of the article? Maybe you have not yet had time to write the conclusion in this first draft?''

===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===
''The article needs proofreading throughout. I found in the region of 30-40 grammatical/spelling errors.
The language used is generally very good - great job! A couple of places sentences could be cut in two, but that's all! :)
Apart from a thorough grammar check, your language needs no further work. Spend your time on the other points mentioned instead.
''

===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===
''Figures and tables are generally very good. I must admit I don't quite understand the first one (influence-expenditure), so perhaps just clarify this graph so that more people (e.g. a child or me) can understand it! :) ''

===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===
''The article does a good job at describing, referencing literature and giving an overall topical insight. However, I don't feel it is very practically useable in its current format.
Three things strike me as confusing given the article title/heading:

1. It seems a good article for someone to get to know what the term 'Project Initiation' is about
2. I cannot see any particularly highlighted management tips or advice in the article, despite the word management in the title
3. (After carefully reading the whole article) I cannot readily see how someone from the construction industry can pick up this article, read it and then go 'OK, so I need to do this (whatever thing) whereby I get this (a given) benefit'. ''

===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 think currently it makes an interesting read for academics, or perhaps junior industry employees, moreso than more experienced practitioners.

I definitely feel like it has advantages over a standard web search, as it gathers a lot of useful references in one place.

I would make the article more practically useable.
''

===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''

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''write your name here''==
===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''