S182573 at 21:06, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T21:06:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 25 February 2019
Line 89:		Line 89:


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Jokin Brito''==



	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''~~NAME~~''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 102:		Line 98:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The summary gives a good idea about the topic, it talks about how this can help a project to be successful and helps the reader to stay interested.''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 118:		Line 114:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The structure makes the article a little hard to read, I would give more examples of how the project charter can be made instead of writing all the tools as bullet points. Even though it helps a project manager to understand the importance of making a project charter.''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 130:		Line 126:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The grammar is good, just some minor mistakes in the abstract''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 142:		Line 138:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The figures are good but I would try to create new figures instead of censoring the existing ones, also I would add figure numbers.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 154:		Line 150:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is interesting and very relevant to project management, it explains well why this tool is important in any project''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 166:		Line 162:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''I would add some empirical knowledge or real life examples. The pros and cones are good.''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 180:		Line 176:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''This part is vey well done.''

S154073: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Johan Hilsøe== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the ..."

2019-02-25T20:15:15Z

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

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Johan Hilsøe==
===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 provides a good overview of what to expect of the article. Especially the last section is a nice overview of the article. Maybe consider describing what a project charter is in a single sentence or two, before explaining the limitations, pros and cons.

===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 makes sense to explain why one would make a project charter and then explain exactly what it contains. The example links it all together, but the picture could be larger. Also, I think that it shouldn't contain confidential information blanked out - rather make a new one with made up contents.

===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===
Most of the article is in perfect english. The abstract needs a fine-tuning though :).

===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===
The text links to the pictures well. No comments.

===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===
Very relevant, especially linked to the process of a project.

===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 provides rather good information on the project charter, but the subject can easily be Googled. If possible, dig deeper in to the pros and cons and how to use it. Use the example :).

===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===
Perfect, provides why the references are used. Maybe one more reference would be good.

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''NAME''==
===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''

Talk:The Project Charter - Revision history

S182573 at 21:06, 25 February 2019

S154073: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Johan Hilsøe== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the ..."