Talk:Resources loading, leveling and crashing - Revision history

Akorno: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kornpong Mahitthiburin */

2018-02-18T23:09:51Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kornpong Mahitthiburin

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 18 February 2018
Line 172:		Line 172:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
			This needed to be worked more, It is totally convinced me to accept at this stage but may not others.
	This needed to be worked more, It is totally convinced me to accept at this stage but may not others.

	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''

Akorno: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-18T23:09:18Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 18 February 2018
Line 172:		Line 172:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===

	This needed to be worked more, It is totally convinced me to accept at this stage but may not others.		This needed to be worked more, It is totally convinced me to accept at this stage but may not others.

Akorno at 23:08, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T23:08:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:08, 18 February 2018
Line 110:		Line 110:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	No annotated bibliography. The referencing seems objective, so it is mainly just a matter of maturing the article more.		No annotated bibliography. The referencing seems objective, so it is mainly just a matter of maturing the article more.



			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Kornpong Mahitthiburin''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''good

			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			Yes, more length in abstract would be nice.
			===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===
			I cannot make a justification based on the few content at this time .
			===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 have not spotted any error, I believe that everything seems to be good.

			===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===
			No figures yet.

			===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===
			This needed to be worked more, It is totally convinced me to accept at this stage but may not others.

			'''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===
			This is very interesting for both, yes, and nothing.
			===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===
			Two mentioned references are good, but it is impossible to justify this article at this time because there is not much content.

Daugaard: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-18T15:13:01Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, 18 February 2018
Line 22:		Line 22:
	<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search		<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
	</ol>		</ol>

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Sebastian Daugaard''==
			===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 article gives a brief introduction to the topic and why it is of interest to project managers. It could use a bit more length.
			===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===
			At the time of writing, the article is too short to discuss flow and whether parts are building on each other. Naturally, no contradictions exists either.
			The topic of the article leans toward visualization tools and perhaps examples. I would look into that.

			===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 writing is fine and seems very encyklopedia-esque.

			===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===
			No figures yet.

			===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===
			I can clearly see the relevance of the article. It just needs to be worked on more. Because it involves several methods, I could imagine that it has to be quite comprehensive.
			===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===
			This is one of the topics that could be interesting to read up on, just to get a better understanding of how the different tasks can be conducted. Thus, it can be of interest to practicioners as well as acedemics; granted that it receives some work.

			===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===
			No annotated bibliography. The referencing seems objective, so it is mainly just a matter of maturing the article more.

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-14T09:00:40Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:00, 14 February 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:
	'''Purpose explanation''' Consider		'''Purpose explanation''' Consider
	<ol>		<ol>
	<li> What issue are you ~~address~~?		<li> What issue are you addressing?
	<li> Briefly explain the structure of article to set the reader's expectations		<li> Briefly explain the structure of article to set the reader's expectations
	<li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?		<li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Good '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Abstract needs to be expanded - explain what scheduli..."

2018-02-14T09:00:29Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Good '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Abstract needs to be expanded - explain what scheduli..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity''' Good

'''Language''' Good

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Abstract needs to be expanded - explain what scheduling is and its relationship to resources/resource management

'''Purpose explanation''' Consider
<ol>
<li> What issue are you address?
<li> Briefly explain the structure of article to set the reader's expectations
<li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?
</ol>

'''References''' Okay, try adding more appropriate references from the mandatory list of references

'''Relevance of article''' Consider the following:

<ol>
<li> What will the reader get out of reading this article?
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
</ol>