Talk:Risk Management in Construction Projects - Revision history

Hoda.vn at 19:36, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T19:36:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 19 February 2018
Line 98:		Line 98:

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==
	===Question 1 · ===		===Question 1 ===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Line 123:		Line 123:
	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''Well explanation of the Risk Management. Easy to understand and has a nice flow . Maybe that would be a good idea if you talk a little more about construction project with some example.''		''Well explanation of the Risk Management. Easy to understand and has a nice flow . Maybe that would be a good idea if you talk a little more about construction project with some example.''
	===Question 3 · ===		===Question 3 ===
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

Line 135:		Line 135:
	''Good language and academic words . Easy to understand the whole text . ''		''Good language and academic words . Easy to understand the whole text . ''

	===Question 4 · ===		===Question 4 ===
	'''Figures and tables:'''		'''Figures and tables:'''

Line 147:		Line 147:
	''Good pictures related to every part of article, however some more pictures can be a good help to clarify the topics and comprehend the meaning.''		''Good pictures related to every part of article, however some more pictures can be a good help to clarify the topics and comprehend the meaning.''

	===Question 5 · ===		===Question 5 ===
	'''Interest and relevance:'''		'''Interest and relevance:'''

Line 159:		Line 159:
	''It seems to be an academic relevance article . Although, thats a good choise if practical relevance be more clear in the text. ''		''It seems to be an academic relevance article . Although, thats a good choise if practical relevance be more clear in the text. ''

	===Question 6 · ===		===Question 6 ===
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''

Line 170:		Line 170:
	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''Risk management is more an academic text and lots of related articles are available on the web. However this in not finish yet and after author done that can comment about significant contribution.''		''Risk management is more an academic text and lots of related articles are available on the web. However this in not finish yet and after author done that can comment about significant contribution.''
	===Question 7 · ===		===Question 7 ===
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

Hoda.vn at 19:35, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T19:35:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:35, 19 February 2018
Line 106:		Line 106:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''.... ''		''Nice summary. Clear to see that you talk about Risk Management and improve your discussion in the whole text with elements.''

	===Question 2 ===		===Question 2 ===
Line 122:		Line 122:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''...		''Well explanation of the Risk Management. Easy to understand and has a nice flow . Maybe that would be a good idea if you talk a little more about construction project with some example.''
	===Question 3 · ===		===Question 3 · ===
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''
Line 133:		Line 133:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''...		''Good language and academic words . Easy to understand the whole text . ''

	===Question 4 · ===		===Question 4 · ===
Line 145:		Line 145:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''...''		''Good pictures related to every part of article, however some more pictures can be a good help to clarify the topics and comprehend the meaning.''

	===Question 5 · ===		===Question 5 · ===
Line 157:		Line 157:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''..~~.. "~~		''It seems to be an academic relevance article . Although, thats a good choise if practical relevance be more clear in the text. ''

	===Question 6 · ===		===Question 6 · ===
Line 169:		Line 169:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''...		''Risk management is more an academic text and lots of related articles are available on the web. However this in not finish yet and after author done that can comment about significant contribution.''
	===Question 7 · ===		===Question 7 · ===
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''
Line 182:		Line 182:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''...''		''Yes, it is an article base on data and properly citing. There are not key references summarize at the end of the text.''

Hoda.vn at 13:51, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T13:51:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 19 February 2018
Line 97:		Line 97:
	''Yes there is prOperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography.''		''Yes there is prOperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography.''

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==
	===Question 1 · ===		===Question 1 · ===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Hoda.vn at 13:46, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T13:46:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:46, 19 February 2018
Line 96:		Line 96:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Yes there is prOperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography.''		''Yes there is prOperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography.''

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==
			===Question 1 · ===
			'''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===
			''.... ''

			===Question 2 ===
			'''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===
			''...
			===Question 3 · ===
			'''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===
			''...

			===Question 4 · ===
			'''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===
			''...''

			===Question 5 · ===
			'''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===
			''.... "

			===Question 6 · ===
			'''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===
			''...
			===Question 7 · ===
			'''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===
			''...''

Daniel Campos: /* Answer 7 */

2018-02-18T16:56:49Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 18 February 2018
Line 95:		Line 95:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Yes there is ~~prperly~~ citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography.''		''Yes there is prOperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography.''

Daniel Campos at 15:30, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T15:30:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 18 February 2018
Line 17:		Line 17:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''Good summary. It is very clear what you are going to tell about and ~~what~~ the ~~CPM actually~~''		''Good summary. It is very clear what you are going to tell about Risk management, maybe you have to speak more how is related the uncertain effectiveness and uncertain efficiency and the 4 fundamental elements with construction projects ''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 33:		Line 33:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''Nice explanation of the ~~CPM~~. Good flow but I find the ~~sections application a bit long~~. The article has a nice flow.		''Nice explanation of the Management Risk. Good flow but I find that there is not relation with construction projects and the subtitles yet, . The article has a nice flow.
	Very nice with links ~~to other wiki pages. But~~ is ~~these the once from this course? if not I think they should be. I would try~~ to ~~split~~ the ~~section application up ino subsection even if it~~ is ~~all coherent.~~ ''		Very nice with links and the biography of the references, but maybe is good idea to speak about the biography and how is related with construction projects with examples, arguments, illustration etc ''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 46:		Line 46:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''No ~~gramma~~ or spelling mistakes. Good language.''		''No grammar or spelling mistakes i think so. Good language and I can understand the whole idea, however i am not the best to speak in this topic i am spanish native speaker .''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 58:		Line 58:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''I think the pictures are place a ~~bit messy. The pictures~~ are ~~not placed next to~~ the ~~text which tells about the picture. I would do that~~, ~~because it can be a bit confusing when~~ you ~~read~~ that you ~~have to look for the picture~~. But good choise of picture, they are easy to understand.''		''I think the pictures are place a good and are related with the arcticule, however you know that you haven't finish yet and should put more pictures. But good choise of picture, they are easy to understand.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 70:		Line 70:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''It has ~~both~~ practical ~~and academic~~ relevance~~. Because it tells about how to use the CPM and the thought about it. Very nice with~~ the ~~section " The evolution from CP to DPM~~"~~. I would like it more clear why CPM is relevant. ''~~		''It has academic relevance nevertheless practical relevance should be reflected more directly in the text "

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''
Line 82:		Line 81:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''There is a lot about ~~CPM~~ on the internet, ~~but this give~~ a ~~more detailed explenation on hav~~ to ~~program a~~ project ~~with CPM, which I~~ think is a contribution. ''		''There is a lot about Risk Management on the internet, PMBOOK Project Management Book is a good guide to work in civil engineering project and is to early to think that is significant contribution because the author haven't finished yet''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 96:		Line 95:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Yes there is prperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography~~, but shouldn't there be added more in it?~~''		''Yes there is prperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography.''

Daniel Campos at 14:57, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T14:57:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 18 February 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Try to avoid a too generic article.		Try to avoid a too generic article.

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Daniel Campos Rivera''==
			===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===
			''Good summary. It is very clear what you are going to tell about and what the CPM actually''

			===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===
			''Nice explanation of the CPM. Good flow but I find the sections application a bit long. The article has a nice flow.
			Very nice with links to other wiki pages. But is these the once from this course? if not I think they should be. I would try to split the section application up ino subsection even if it is all coherent. ''

			===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===
			''No gramma or spelling mistakes. Good language.''

			===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 the pictures are place a bit messy. The pictures are not placed next to the text which tells about the picture. I would do that, because it can be a bit confusing when you read that you have to look for the picture. But good choise of picture, they are easy to understand.''

			===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===
			''It has both practical and academic relevance. Because it tells about how to use the CPM and the thought about it. Very nice with the section " The evolution from CP to DPM". I would like it more clear why CPM is relevant. ''

			===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===
			''There is a lot about CPM on the internet, but this give a more detailed explenation on hav to program a project with CPM, which I think is a contribution. ''

			===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===
			''Yes there is prperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography, but shouldn't there be added more in it?''

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. Try to avoid a too generic article."

2018-02-07T22:31:15Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. Try to avoid a too generic article."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; Ok.

Try to avoid a too generic article.