Talk:SMART Goals and Objectives - Revision history

S190056 at 18:54, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:54:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 25 February 2019
Line 97:		Line 97:


	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Sarantis Pavlidis~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Stefano Di Lenardo''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 106:		Line 106:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The summery is good. However, I find it too short and I think that some points could be developed more.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 122:		Line 122:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The logical flow of the article is clear. I do not see any kind of contradiction. Maybe you should use less examples.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
	~~'''Grammar and style:'''~~

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Line 134:		Line 133:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The English is fluent, there are just few grammar mistakes.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 146:		Line 145:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Not uploaded yet

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 170:		Line 169:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Not yet but the topic has potential to be an academic article.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 184:		Line 183:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		more citations needed.

S190056 at 18:28, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:28:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 25 February 2019
Line 95:		Line 95:

	'' I think you need some more citation. For example the whole limitations section is written without a single citation.''		'' I think you need some more citation. For example the whole limitations section is written without a single citation.''


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Sarantis Pavlidis''==
			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

			===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===
			''Answer here''

Steffen Hansen at 10:13, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T10:13:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 25 February 2019
Line 54:		Line 54:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer~~ here''		''No figures or tables so not much to say here.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

Steffen Hansen at 10:12, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T10:12:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:12, 25 February 2019
Line 8:		Line 8:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Good summary that captures what SMART is. Maybe it's a bit too focused on only "what is SMART", and i think the abstract should be a summary of the whole article, also application and limitations.'

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''In the section Big ~~IDea~~ version, i would add a bit more to each word, maybe give some examples.''		''In the section Big Idea version, i would add a bit more to each word, maybe give some examples.''

	'' In the Application section: I like the example, really gives a good idea of what SMART is, but i dont think it's a good idea to start a section with an example. First there should be a general explanation, and then followed by an example. That's my view anyway.''		'' In the Application section: I like the example, really gives a good idea of what SMART is, but i dont think it's a good idea to start a section with an example. First there should be a general explanation, and then followed by an example. That's my view anyway.''

	''Limitations section: Again, good example, but i dont think an example should be the main part of a section in a wiki article. There should be a general section about the limitations also''		''Limitations section: Again, good example, but i dont think an example should be the main part of a section in a wiki article. There should be a general section about the limitations also''

Line 39:		Line 41:
	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''In general it's pretty well written with good grammar, however there are some spelling and grammar mistakes. If you read it through im sure you'll find them.''		''In general it's pretty well written with good grammar, however there are some spelling and grammar mistakes. If you read it through im sure you'll find them.''

	''There are some speaking-english somewhere, for example the last section "Also, the great thing about recipes is that they are a guideline of doing things". Of course i dont know what the teachers want from us, but i would imagine they want academic language''		''There are some speaking-english somewhere, for example the last section "Also, the great thing about recipes is that they are a guideline of doing things". Of course i dont know what the teachers want from us, but i would imagine they want academic language''

Line 75:		Line 78:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article gives a good explain of SMART, but i think it's lacking in this aspect. There is a lack of connection to actual research on the topic (i realise that might be hard to find). What is the scientific arguments for using the method? Have there been no research? Maybe some research about the limitations?''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 89:		Line 92:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''They want a few lines about each annotated reference about why it's relevant.'

			'' I think you need some more citation. For example the whole limitations section is written without a single citation.''

Steffen Hansen: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Steffen Hansen''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of..."

2019-02-25T10:05:41Z

Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Steffen Hansen''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of..."

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Steffen Hansen''==
===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''In the section Big IDea version, i would add a bit more to each word, maybe give some examples.''
'' In the Application section: I like the example, really gives a good idea of what SMART is, but i dont think it's a good idea to start a section with an example. First there should be a general explanation, and then followed by an example. That's my view anyway.''
''Limitations section: Again, good example, but i dont think an example should be the main part of a section in a wiki article. There should be a general section about the limitations also''

===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===
''In general it's pretty well written with good grammar, however there are some spelling and grammar mistakes. If you read it through im sure you'll find them.''
''There are some speaking-english somewhere, for example the last section "Also, the great thing about recipes is that they are a guideline of doing things". Of course i dont know what the teachers want from us, but i would imagine they want academic 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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''