Talk:Project Scope Control Management - Revision history

Søren Bojesen: /* Feedback on Abstract */

2019-02-25T23:35:04Z

Feedback on Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:35, 25 February 2019
Line 14:		Line 14:

	\|}		\|}


			----

			REVIEWER: SØREN BOJESEN
			===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===

			Generally, the abstract is really neat and nice. It would be great with one or two quotes or citations from a standard or relevant litterature to underline the statements. (In my opinion)


			===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===

			It seems there is a very well defined structure, which the article will be written from.

			===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===

			I think the text is easy to read and understand, no unneccessary fillers or gramatical errors.


			===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===

			I think for the covered part of the article, the pictures support the article very nicely.


			===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===

			Interesting reading, much coherence with the course objectives. It seems the article is "only" supported by a standard and litterature on the standard as well - perhabs, some external source could provide an additional angle to the subject matter.

			===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 would suggest to think a little out of the box and add something extra, not sure what it would be, but just soomething to spice it up a little ;-)
			Great article, good luck with it.

			===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===

			Very thoroughly, good job on this as well.

			----

Raquel Valente: /* Feedback on Abstract */

2019-02-19T08:57:51Z

Feedback on Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:57, 19 February 2019
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Project Scope Control is described		\|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''\|\| Project Scope Control is described
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''\|\| The purpose of the article could be better articulated in the end and the focus could be narrowed down to s specific tool/method within Project Scope Control		\|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''\|\| The purpose of the article could be better articulated in the end and the focus could be narrowed down to a specific tool/method within Project Scope Control
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Relevance to curriculum'''\|\| Relevant		\|'''Relevance to curriculum'''\|\| Relevant

Raquel Valente: /* Feedback on Abstract */

2019-02-19T00:12:21Z

Feedback on Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 19 February 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''\|\| The purpose of the article could be better articulated in the end and the focus could be narrowed down to s specific tool/method within Project Scope Control		\|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''\|\| The purpose of the article could be better articulated in the end and the focus could be narrowed down to s specific tool/method within Project Scope Control
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Relevance to curriculum'''\|\| ~~Good~~		\|'''Relevance to curriculum'''\|\| Relevant
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good		\|'''References'''\|\| Good

Raquel Valente: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Project Scope Control is described |- |'''Explanation of the purpose..."

2019-02-19T00:11:16Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Project Scope Control is described |- |'''Explanation of the purpose..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Project Scope Control is described
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| The purpose of the article could be better articulated in the end and the focus could be narrowed down to s specific tool/method within Project Scope Control
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Good
|-
|'''References'''|| Good
|-

|}