Talk:Virtual Team Management - Revision history

SimenHjelseth at 22:46, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T22:46:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, 19 February 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:


	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

SimenHjelseth at 21:46, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:46:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 19 February 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:


	Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth==
	Question 1 · TEXT		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	Quality of the summary:		'''Quality of the summary:'''
	Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	Answer 1
			===Answer 1===
	The summary/abstract is good. I understand the topic, and what the article is going to be about. The list with the different key point makes it clear.		The summary/abstract is good. I understand the topic, and what the article is going to be about. The list with the different key point makes it clear.
	Question 2 · TEXT
	Structure and logic of the article:		===Question 2 · TEXT===
	Is the argument clear?		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
	Is there a logical flow to the article?
	Does one part build upon the other?		Is the argument clear?
	Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
			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?		What would you suggest to improve?
	Answer 2
			===Answer 2===
	The argument of the article is clearly stated, and the logical flow in the article is so far good. The build-up in the abstract makes it seem that the further flow and progress is going to be good aswell. I have nothing to say regarding improvements on this point		The argument of the article is clearly stated, and the logical flow in the article is so far good. The build-up in the abstract makes it seem that the further flow and progress is going to be good aswell. I have nothing to say regarding improvements on this point
	Question 3 · TEXT
	Grammar and style:		===Question 3 · TEXT===
	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		'''Grammar and style:'''
	Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	Answer 3
			===Answer 3===
	The writing, as I see it, is good. I can clearly understand everything, and sentence structure are in my opinion good.		The writing, as I see it, is good. I can clearly understand everything, and sentence structure are in my opinion good.
	Question 4 · TEXT
	Figures and tables:		===Question 4 · TEXT===
	Are figures and tables clear?		'''Figures and tables:'''
	Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
			Are figures and tables clear?

			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	Answer 4
			===Answer 4===
	There are no figures/tables in the text right now, but maybe a table with the existing communication and which countries and company’s using the different stuff would be nice.		There are no figures/tables in the text right now, but maybe a table with the existing communication and which countries and company’s using the different stuff would be nice.
	Question 5 · TEXT
	Interest and relevance:		===Question 5 · TEXT===
	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		'''Interest and relevance:'''
	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
			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?		What would you suggest to improve?
	Answer 5
			===Answer 5===
	The article is relevant, because it clearly is a problem. The article both states the problem and how the wiki article can look at how the problem can be solved, which I think is good.		The article is relevant, because it clearly is a problem. The article both states the problem and how the wiki article can look at how the problem can be solved, which I think is good.
	Question 6 · TEXT
	Depth of treatment:		===Question 6 · TEXT===
	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		'''Depth of treatment:'''
	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
			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?		What would you suggest to improve?
	Answer 6
			===Answer 6===
	I think the article mostly is relevant for the practitioner. A google search on the topic gives some sites online, but not as a management explanation, so I think it will contribute in a web search.		I think the article mostly is relevant for the practitioner. A google search on the topic gives some sites online, but not as a management explanation, so I think it will contribute in a web search.
	Question 7 · TEXT
	Annotated bibliography:		===Question 7 · TEXT===
	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		'''Annotated bibliography:'''
	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		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?		What would you suggest to improve?
	Answer 7
			===Answer 7===
	The article doesn’t mention any previous work, and there is only one reference in the article so far. It is hard to say what all the data is going to be based on. I think it is good to bring in some of both, and that is also my suggestion, as long as the authors see the whole picture.		The article doesn’t mention any previous work, and there is only one reference in the article so far. It is hard to say what all the data is going to be based on. I think it is good to bring in some of both, and that is also my suggestion, as long as the authors see the whole picture.

SimenHjelseth at 21:41, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:41:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 19 February 2018
Line 19:		Line 19:

	I CAN NOT EVALUATE THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THE GUY DROPPED THE COURSE		I CAN NOT EVALUATE THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THE GUY DROPPED THE COURSE


			Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth
			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/abstract is good. I understand the topic, and what the article is going to be about. The list with the different key point makes it clear.
			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 logical flow in the article is so far good. The build-up in the abstract makes it seem that the further flow and progress is going to be good aswell. I have nothing to say regarding improvements on this point
			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 writing, as I see it, is good. I can clearly understand everything, and sentence structure are in my opinion 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
			There are no figures/tables in the text right now, but maybe a table with the existing communication and which countries and company’s using the different stuff would be nice.
			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 is relevant, because it clearly is a problem. The article both states the problem and how the wiki article can look at how the problem can be solved, which I think is good.
			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
			I think the article mostly is relevant for the practitioner. A google search on the topic gives some sites online, but not as a management explanation, so I think it will contribute in a web search.
			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
			The article doesn’t mention any previous work, and there is only one reference in the article so far. It is hard to say what all the data is going to be based on. I think it is good to bring in some of both, and that is also my suggestion, as long as the authors see the whole picture.

DSartori at 17:07, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T17:07:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 19 February 2018
Line 16:		Line 16:
	<li> Briefly describe the structure of the article in the abstract		<li> Briefly describe the structure of the article in the abstract
	</ol>		</ol>


			I CAN NOT EVALUATE THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THE GUY DROPPED THE COURSE

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good, but the context around virtual team..."

2018-02-13T17:52:25Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good, but the context around virtual team..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent

'''Language''' Good

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good, but the context around virtual team management needs to be narrowed down - see "relevance of article"

'''Purpose explanation''' Ok (e.g. clear that the Project Manager is the reader), but the article needs to be narrowed down to one or two knowledge areas of project management - see "relevance of article"

'''References''' Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

'''Relevance of article''' Consider the following:
<ol>
<li> Narrow down the article scope - e.g. to Project Communications Management (see chapter 10 in PMBOK) or Project Human Resource Management (see chapter 9 in PMBOK) to emphasize relevance to project management
<li> Briefly describe the structure of the article in the abstract
</ol>