Talk:Risk Management in Renewable Energy Projects - Revision history

S170073 at 10:27, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T10:27:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 19 February 2018
Line 100:		Line 100:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Everything is clearly justified with multiple references.''		''Everything is clearly justified with multiple references.''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Argyro Soumpourlou''==
			===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 of the article provides relevant information about the topic, but a more specific description of the article context should be included. ''

			===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 argument of the article is clearly stated and the structure is logical. ''

			===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 article is written in an academic language with minor mistakes.''

			===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===
			''Figures and tables are clear and explanatory and supplement the text.''


			===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 could be useful for managers to approach the specific subject.''

			===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 article summarizes the material from the references and it is easy to be understood.''

			===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===
			''In the article relevant and scientific references are included.''

S172781 at 19:56, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T19:56:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 18 February 2018
Line 12:		Line 12:
	What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article. (done)		What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article. (done)

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Ignasi Gironés Cádiz''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

S172781 at 19:55, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T19:55:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 18 February 2018
Line 11:		Line 11:

	What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article. (done)		What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article. (done)

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
			===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===
			''Abstract explains the context of the article but maybe focus a bit too much on projects of non renewable energy. Good as a way to justify the change.I would suggest that maybe a bigger part of section 3 could be reflected at the beginning.''

			===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 argument is clear and the flow is logical without contradictions.''

			===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===
			''Clear language that helps the reading, no changes needed.''

			===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===
			''Figures and tables clear but might be too general and not focused on the topic. There is a lot of research and a lot of numbers written in the text that could that be plotted to make a better first impression of depth.''

			===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 is relevant as renewable energy gains importance''

			===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===
			''It is interesting to read and there is research behind it as lots of data are described during the text''

			===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===
			''Everything is clearly justified with multiple references.''

David Moya Perrino: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-09T16:20:36Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 9 February 2018
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Updated 08-02-18		Updated 08-02-18

	Text Clarity; in general Ok, there are some paragraphs not clear enough.		Text Clarity; in general Ok, there are some paragraphs not clear enough. (done)

	Language; minor grammar issues.		Language; minor grammar issues. (done)

	References; missing references related to the standards, you have only one reference and in the text you mentioned PBOK, I believe you meant PMBOK.		References; missing references related to the standards, you have only one reference and in the text you mentioned PBOK, I believe you meant PMBOK. (done)

	The Abstract is still too generic, the article, so far, does not shows me why should risk management in Energy projects differs from other types of projects, what is the difference?, try to elaborate more this aspect(s).		The Abstract is still too generic, the article, so far, does not shows me why should risk management in Energy projects differs from other types of projects, what is the difference?, try to elaborate more this aspect(s). (in process)

	What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article.		What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article. (done)

S122906: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-07T23:32:06Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 7 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==
	Updated 08-02-18		Updated 08-02-18

	Text Clarity; in general Ok, there are some paragraphs not clear enough.		Text Clarity; in general Ok, there are some paragraphs not clear enough.

S122906 at 23:31, 7 February 2018

2018-02-07T23:31:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 7 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==
	~~The Abstract is too generic, the article mentions larger duration for this type of projects~~, ~~try to elaborate more in this aspect or find a relevant aspect common in Renewable Energy Projects~~.		Updated 08-02-18
			Text Clarity; in general Ok, there are some paragraphs not clear enough.

	~~What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?~~		Language; minor grammar issues.

	~~Missing~~ references, ~~please review~~ the ~~Mandatory References~~ in the ~~listed Reading material~~ of the ~~course~~.		References; missing references related to the standards, you have only one reference and in the text you mentioned PBOK, I believe you meant PMBOK.

			The Abstract is still too generic, the article, so far, does not shows me why should risk management in Energy projects differs from other types of projects, what is the difference?, try to elaborate more this aspect(s).

			What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article.

S122906 at 14:23, 6 February 2018

2018-02-06T14:23:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 6 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==
	The Abstract is too generic, the article mentions larger duration for this type of projects, try to elaborate more in this aspect or find a relevant aspect common in Renewable Energy Projects.		The Abstract is too generic, the article mentions larger duration for this type of projects, try to elaborate more in this aspect or find a relevant aspect common in Renewable Energy Projects.
	What is the ~~relavance~~ of this topic for Project Managers?
			What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?

	Missing references, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.		Missing references, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== The Abstract is too generic, the article mentions larger duration for this type of projects, try to elaborate more in this aspect or find a relevant aspe..."

2018-02-06T14:23:08Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== The Abstract is too generic, the article mentions larger duration for this type of projects, try to elaborate more in this aspect or find a relevant aspe..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
The Abstract is too generic, the article mentions larger duration for this type of projects, try to elaborate more in this aspect or find a relevant aspect common in Renewable Energy Projects.
What is the relavance of this topic for Project Managers?
Missing references, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.