Talk:Resource-Constrained Critical Path Method - Revision history

Ftsn at 13:46, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T13:46:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:46, 25 February 2019
Line 110:		Line 110:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	Spot on, no improvements. The bibliography is very thoroughly constructed.		Spot on, no improvements. The bibliography is very thoroughly constructed.


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Frederik Sørensen - S153237''==
			===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===
			''Concise abstract giving a clear idea of what CPM is. No improvements.''

			===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===
			''Chronological good structure giving the article a good flow, and free of contradictions. Personally I would shorten the section about 'What is project management?', but the idea is good, and it helps setting the scene for the article.''

			===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===
			''Grammatically well written with no suggestions of improvement.''

			===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===
			''Nice and plenty use of figures substantiating the contents of the article, and the steps that you read about. Only thing I miss is perhaps references as to where the inspiration to these figures were found, assuming that they are self-made.''

			===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===
			''Article provides both high practical and academic relevance, reflecting a proper work of research on the subject in advance to the creation of the article.''

			===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===
			''Both interesting to read, and well beyond a cursory web search.''

			===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===
			''Well-elaborated annotated bibliography, and correct use of citation throughout the article.''

Gustav Josephsen at 13:13, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T13:13:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 24 February 2019
Line 16:		Line 16:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good		\|'''References'''\|\| Good
	\|}		\|}


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Gustav Josephsen s154318==
			===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 summary is short and clear and introduces the reader to the topic quickly and structured.
			Abstract should reflect the entire article, so maybe include some of the key points/learnings in the abstract.

			===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===
			The logic through the article is very well written and goes thorough through the different aspect of CPM.
			Some of the parts e.g. “How to use the Critical Path Method” is a bit confusing structurally. There is a lot of images, formulas and calculation in one long thread. It’s easy understandable, but you just lose the overview during the reading.

			===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 use of language is academic and emphasizes the points made in the text. Easy to read. Few to no mistakes. No real improvements.

			===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===
			The table used visualizes the topic well and is easy to understand.
			I assume that the tables and models are self-made, but maybe include that or refer to the source where from you have your inspiration, so the reader knows you are the author :).
			===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 is highly relevant to project management, and the article underlines why the function of a CPM can be useful for an organization.
			Only improvement could be a clear connection between CPM and ‘project, program and portfolio management’, in order to meet with the curriculum.

			===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===
			The topic is relevant and really goes into the depth of CPM.
			Only the part where project management is described may not be directly relevant to the topic. It is linked to the topic, but project management may not be included in the article.

			===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===
			Spot on, no improvements. The bibliography is very thoroughly constructed.

Ebkh: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good..."

2019-02-19T09:05:51Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Language'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
|-
|'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good
|-
|'''Title of the Wiki'''|| Good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Good
|}