Talk:Project Management Body of Knowledge - Revision history

Secna: /* Review by "User" */

2014-12-01T07:47:04Z

Review by "User"

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:47, 1 December 2014
Line 41:		Line 41:

	*I need to say that you have quite a good amount of small grammar mistakes (e.g. “is” instead of “are”, missing articles like “…is (a) new standard within PM)		*I need to say that you have quite a good amount of small grammar mistakes (e.g. “is” instead of “are”, missing articles like “…is (a) new standard within PM)
			-correct most of the mistakes, might have missed some.

	*Make sure you write names always in capital letters (e.g. International (P)roject (M)anagement (A)ssociation (IPMA)”)		*Make sure you write names always in capital letters (e.g. International (P)roject (M)anagement (A)ssociation (IPMA)”)
			-fixed

	*In my opinion your sentences tend to be too long. Find more often the dot button on our keyboard and it will be fine and more clear for the reader. ;-)		*In my opinion your sentences tend to be too long. Find more often the dot button on our keyboard and it will be fine and more clear for the reader. ;-)
			- I have tried to rewrite some of the sentence to make them smaller, but i do agree with you.

	*It might be a good idea to check your text for repetitions of words (e.g. your 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences all begin by “The standard…”).		*It might be a good idea to check your text for repetitions of words (e.g. your 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences all begin by “The standard…”).
			- same as before

	*You should annotate the table (“Table 1”).		*You should annotate the table (“Table 1”).
			-fixed

	*Consider labeling the axes of the table, i.e. “Processes” and “Main topics”.		*Consider labeling the axes of the table, i.e. “Processes” and “Main topics”.
			-i would if i could

	*You could also consider illustrating the processes described by the PMBOK (probably 5 simple arrows each including its process name), which would make the article more clear and visible.		*You could also consider illustrating the processes described by the PMBOK (probably 5 simple arrows each including its process name), which would make the article more clear and visible.
			-done, and thanks for the idea.

	*I think especially the section “Content of the standard” (Capital letters please!) should be split up into some sub-sections. Therefore you should use Wiki’s sub-headlines (“ === Sub === “). Definitely you apply that to distinguish more between the description of the processes and the one of the main topics. So make it more structured, more transparent for the reader.		*I think especially the section “Content of the standard” (Capital letters please!) should be split up into some sub-sections. Therefore you should use Wiki’s sub-headlines (“ === Sub === “). Definitely you apply that to distinguish more between the description of the processes and the one of the main topics. So make it more structured, more transparent for the reader.
			- defently a good idea!

	=== Content Aspects ===		=== Content Aspects ===
Line 55:		Line 70:
	*Another interesting aspect could be the tools provided by the “groups of processes”. You only mention that there are tools existing. Instead you could give a brief outline or overview about the most interesting tools.		*Another interesting aspect could be the tools provided by the “groups of processes”. You only mention that there are tools existing. Instead you could give a brief outline or overview about the most interesting tools.
	*At least if you pick up some of my suggestions you could extend the length of the article a little bit.		*At least if you pick up some of my suggestions you could extend the length of the article a little bit.
			- The task has in generel been quit hard because of the topic i choose, and the amount of articles i have been able to find has been almost nothing, i started out with the ambition, to write exactly what you have suggested, but I just haven't been able to find it.

	*The logical flow of your article basically follows the standard. Try to apply some transition section/sentences to make it more smooth and understandable. Point out more clearly and from the beginning, what you want to do within this article.		*The logical flow of your article basically follows the standard. Try to apply some transition section/sentences to make it more smooth and understandable. Point out more clearly and from the beginning, what you want to do within this article.
			-a few sentence have been added.

	*I do not see any quotes throughout your text. Make it more lively, make it more proof by taking more and different sources into account.		*I do not see any quotes throughout your text. Make it more lively, make it more proof by taking more and different sources into account.

	*If you start using the term “main topics” stick to it. Don’t confuse the reader by using just “parts” later on.		*If you start using the term “main topics” stick to it. Don’t confuse the reader by using just “parts” later on.
			-done

	*I like how relate the stakeholder analysis, power/interest grid etc. to Project Stakeholder Management. Try to find more relations. Provide the reader with some more links.		*I like how relate the stakeholder analysis, power/interest grid etc. to Project Stakeholder Management. Try to find more relations. Provide the reader with some more links.

Line 69:		Line 91:
	Cheers!		Cheers!
	Yours “User”		Yours “User”

			- thanks alot for your comments they have been very useful.

Secna: /* Review by Dunseiz */

2014-12-01T07:41:02Z

Review by Dunseiz

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:41, 1 December 2014
Line 6:		Line 6:

	The references are done manually as far as I can see. I have made the first two "linked" reference for you because they are slightly different in the code you have to use. They can be copied/pasted and modified to fit the rest of the references.		The references are done manually as far as I can see. I have made the first two "linked" reference for you because they are slightly different in the code you have to use. They can be copied/pasted and modified to fit the rest of the references.

			-- i have made all the reference in the correct wiki formating

	There are a few grammatical mistakes mainly related to present tense verbs (he/she/it ''does'' VS. we/they ''do'' as well as he/she/it ''walks'' or we/they ''walk'')		There are a few grammatical mistakes mainly related to present tense verbs (he/she/it ''does'' VS. we/they ''do'' as well as he/she/it ''walks'' or we/they ''walk'')

			-- think i have corrected most of them

	'''BACKGROUND'''		'''BACKGROUND'''
Line 14:		Line 17:
	"This article will be about..." Does "be about" mean a general talk or is it more specific? Another way of phrasing it could be something like "provide the reader with a “table of contents” level understanding and starting point for in-depth exploration". I know, this is taken directly from Josef and Christians "templates and instructions" but something that tells the reader what he or she can expect to gain from reading the article.		"This article will be about..." Does "be about" mean a general talk or is it more specific? Another way of phrasing it could be something like "provide the reader with a “table of contents” level understanding and starting point for in-depth exploration". I know, this is taken directly from Josef and Christians "templates and instructions" but something that tells the reader what he or she can expect to gain from reading the article.

			short intro created.

	'''TABLE 1'''		'''TABLE 1'''

	It says "table 1 below..." and I, as a reader, am not in doubt what table to look after but I would still provide the table with a figure text saying "Table 1" - just to uphold standard formatting.		It says "table 1 below..." and I, as a reader, am not in doubt what table to look after but I would still provide the table with a figure text saying "Table 1" - just to uphold standard formatting.

			-table text added.

	I see that the numbering starts at 4 - is that on purpose or is that a mistake?		I see that the numbering starts at 4 - is that on purpose or is that a mistake?

			-its because it shows the chapters within the standard, and that starts at 4, i have made it more clear that, thats is the case
			-thanks for the comments.

	'''		'''

User at 02:13, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T02:13:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 26 November 2014
Line 52:		Line 52:
	*I like how relate the stakeholder analysis, power/interest grid etc. to Project Stakeholder Management. Try to find more relations. Provide the reader with some more links.		*I like how relate the stakeholder analysis, power/interest grid etc. to Project Stakeholder Management. Try to find more relations. Provide the reader with some more links.

			=== Overall ===
	Overall, I think, you still have some potential inside your article that you should pick up to improve! What I find most noticeable is that you almost do not deploy any different angles, approaches or applications. So basically there is no controversial character within your text. Due to that, the discussion section keeps below its expectations.		Overall, I think, you still have some potential inside your article that you should pick up to improve! What I find most noticeable is that you almost do not deploy any different angles, approaches or applications. So basically there is no controversial character within your text. Due to that, the discussion section keeps below its expectations.

User: /* Review by "User" */ new section

2014-11-26T02:12:06Z

Review by "User": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:12, 26 November 2014
Line 23:		Line 23:

	'''		'''

			== Review by "User" ==

			Hej APPPM mate!

			First of all I have to admit that you, in my eyes, chose quite a challenging task with the PMBOK, as it is not easy to find an appropriate level of detail for this article. Another challenge is to keep it interesting or exciting for the reader. But I think you are on the track already and hope I can contribute to your success. But let’s start now…

			=== Formal Aspects ===

			*I need to say that you have quite a good amount of small grammar mistakes (e.g. “is” instead of “are”, missing articles like “…is (a) new standard within PM)
			*Make sure you write names always in capital letters (e.g. International (P)roject (M)anagement (A)ssociation (IPMA)”)
			*In my opinion your sentences tend to be too long. Find more often the dot button on our keyboard and it will be fine and more clear for the reader. ;-)
			*It might be a good idea to check your text for repetitions of words (e.g. your 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences all begin by “The standard…”).
			*You should annotate the table (“Table 1”).
			*Consider labeling the axes of the table, i.e. “Processes” and “Main topics”.
			*You could also consider illustrating the processes described by the PMBOK (probably 5 simple arrows each including its process name), which would make the article more clear and visible.
			*I think especially the section “Content of the standard” (Capital letters please!) should be split up into some sub-sections. Therefore you should use Wiki’s sub-headlines (“ === Sub === “). Definitely you apply that to distinguish more between the description of the processes and the one of the main topics. So make it more structured, more transparent for the reader.

			=== Content Aspects ===

			*As I mentioned in the beginning, it is a hard task to keep it exciting/interesting for the reader. To contribute more to this requirement you should maybe re-think or refine the mission you are trying to accomplish with your reports. Maybe you could be a bit more ambitioned and aim at a little more then summing up the standard.
			*For example you could try to reflect on the application of PMBOK. Try to find some interesting quotes from PMs regarding the use, the benefits, the limitations of the standard. Especially the discussion part would benefit from that.
			*Another interesting aspect could be the tools provided by the “groups of processes”. You only mention that there are tools existing. Instead you could give a brief outline or overview about the most interesting tools.
			*At least if you pick up some of my suggestions you could extend the length of the article a little bit.
			*The logical flow of your article basically follows the standard. Try to apply some transition section/sentences to make it more smooth and understandable. Point out more clearly and from the beginning, what you want to do within this article.
			*I do not see any quotes throughout your text. Make it more lively, make it more proof by taking more and different sources into account.
			*If you start using the term “main topics” stick to it. Don’t confuse the reader by using just “parts” later on.
			*I like how relate the stakeholder analysis, power/interest grid etc. to Project Stakeholder Management. Try to find more relations. Provide the reader with some more links.

			Overall, I think, you still have some potential inside your article that you should pick up to improve! What I find most noticeable is that you almost do not deploy any different angles, approaches or applications. So basically there is no controversial character within your text. Due to that, the discussion section keeps below its expectations.

			I think it is okay to have no controversy in your article, but then you should just focus on condensing relevant information throughout your work. Also apply visualization.

			Anyway, I think you are on a good way and you will maybe be on a better one with my review. And please just remember to ask somebody to check your formal mistakes before handing it in. ;-)

			Cheers!
			Yours “User”

Dunseiz at 00:02, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T00:02:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:02, 26 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Review ~~done~~ by Dunseiz ==		== Review by Dunseiz ==

	'''GENERAL COMMENTS'''		'''GENERAL COMMENTS'''

Dunseiz at 21:37, 25 November 2014

2014-11-25T21:37:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 25 November 2014
Line 11:		Line 11:

	'''BACKGROUND'''		'''BACKGROUND'''

	"This article will be about..." Does "be about" mean a general talk or is it more specific? Another way of phrasing it could be something like "provide the reader with a “table of contents” level understanding and starting point for in-depth exploration". I know, this is taken directly from Josef and Christians "templates and instructions" but something that tells the reader what he or she can expect to gain from reading the article.		"This article will be about..." Does "be about" mean a general talk or is it more specific? Another way of phrasing it could be something like "provide the reader with a “table of contents” level understanding and starting point for in-depth exploration". I know, this is taken directly from Josef and Christians "templates and instructions" but something that tells the reader what he or she can expect to gain from reading the article.

Dunseiz at 21:37, 25 November 2014

2014-11-25T21:37:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 25 November 2014
Line 15:		Line 15:

	'''TABLE 1'''		'''TABLE 1'''

			It says "table 1 below..." and I, as a reader, am not in doubt what table to look after but I would still provide the table with a figure text saying "Table 1" - just to uphold standard formatting.

			I see that the numbering starts at 4 - is that on purpose or is that a mistake?


			'''

Dunseiz at 21:28, 25 November 2014

2014-11-25T21:28:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 25 November 2014
Line 14:		Line 14:


	'''		'''TABLE 1'''

Dunseiz at 21:24, 25 November 2014

2014-11-25T21:24:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 25 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Review done by Dunseiz ==		== Review done by Dunseiz ==

	'''GENERAL ~~COMENTS~~'''		'''GENERAL COMMENTS'''

	In general I like this article for its conciseness.		In general I like this article for its conciseness.

Dunseiz at 21:23, 25 November 2014

2014-11-25T21:23:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 25 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Review done by Dunseiz ==		== Review done by Dunseiz ==

	'''~~General comments~~'''		'''GENERAL COMENTS'''

	In general I like this article for its conciseness.		In general I like this article for its conciseness.

Line 11:		Line 12:
	'''BACKGROUND'''		'''BACKGROUND'''
	"This article will be about..." Does "be about" mean a general talk or is it more specific? Another way of phrasing it could be something like "provide the reader with a “table of contents” level understanding and starting point for in-depth exploration". I know, this is taken directly from Josef and Christians "templates and instructions" but something that tells the reader what he or she can expect to gain from reading the article.		"This article will be about..." Does "be about" mean a general talk or is it more specific? Another way of phrasing it could be something like "provide the reader with a “table of contents” level understanding and starting point for in-depth exploration". I know, this is taken directly from Josef and Christians "templates and instructions" but something that tells the reader what he or she can expect to gain from reading the article.


			'''