Talk:Scheduling: Critical path, PERT and Gantt - Revision history

Frank Almirudis: Blanked the page

2019-03-04T13:25:12Z

Blanked the page

S186465 at 22:39, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T22:39:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:39, 25 February 2019
Line 110:		Line 110:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Madalina Grigoras''==
			===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===
			Well done.
			===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===
			It seems to be consistent and 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===
			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===
			It is not possible to answer.

			===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 is not possible to answer.

			===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 not possible to answer.

			===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===
			It is not possible to answer.

S182994 at 20:38, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T20:38:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 25 February 2019
Line 17:		Line 17:
	\|'''Other'''\|\| You need a headline for the abstract and the "content box" is before the abstract and the abstract is a bit long. This topic very broad. If you go for it then focus on which method to choose depending on the project and the comparison of the methods since this it what is useful for the reader. So focus on your part 2 and keep 3,4,5 to a minimum. Otherwise it might be better to focus your article so it is not too broad. Let me know if it does not make sense.		\|'''Other'''\|\| You need a headline for the abstract and the "content box" is before the abstract and the abstract is a bit long. This topic very broad. If you go for it then focus on which method to choose depending on the project and the comparison of the methods since this it what is useful for the reader. So focus on your part 2 and keep 3,4,5 to a minimum. Otherwise it might be better to focus your article so it is not too broad. Let me know if it does not make sense.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Federica Menti''==
			===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===
			''Yes''

			===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===
			''Yes, the argument is clear and also the structure of 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?
			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===
			''improvements suggested:
			Abstract: typing error "aforementioned"''


			Not possible to answer to the question below.
			===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''

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

2019-02-19T10:26:09Z

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'''|| OK but could mention something about a comparison or the fact that the article is made to help choosing the right method
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Other'''|| You need a headline for the abstract and the "content box" is before the abstract and the abstract is a bit long. This topic very broad. If you go for it then focus on which method to choose depending on the project and the comparison of the methods since this it what is useful for the reader. So focus on your part 2 and keep 3,4,5 to a minimum. Otherwise it might be better to focus your article so it is not too broad. Let me know if it does not make sense.
|}