Talk:Work Breakdown Structure in Construction Management - Revision history

S172048: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen */

2018-02-19T21:28:46Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 19 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen ==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen ==
	''There is not much to review, since the report is not complete yet. But the summary is clear and concise. In addition, it is interesting that you will include some practical examples to the article ~~as well~~.''		''There is not much to review, since the report is not complete yet. But the summary is clear and concise. In addition, it is interesting that you will include some practical examples to the article - keep ut the good work:):).''

S172048 at 21:28, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:28:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 19 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen ==''		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen ==
	''There is not much to review, since the report is not complete yet. But the summary is clear and concise. In addition, it is interesting that you will include some practical examples to the article as well.''		''There is not much to review, since the report is not complete yet. But the summary is clear and concise. In addition, it is interesting that you will include some practical examples to the article as well.''

S172048: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen */

2018-02-19T21:27:40Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 19 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen ==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen ==''
			''There is not much to review, since the report is not complete yet. But the summary is clear and concise. In addition, it is interesting that you will include some practical examples to the article as well.''


	===Question 1 ===		===Question 1 ===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 88:		Line 91:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''




	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

S172048: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-19T21:19:35Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 19 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen ==
			===Question 1 ===
			'''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 ===
			'''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 ===
			'''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 ===
			'''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 ===
			'''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 ===
			'''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 ===
			'''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''




	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-16T12:54:12Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 16 February 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Well addressed, but try to use the word "scope" in the abstract - as in a work breakdown structure is a tool used breakdown the scope of a project		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Well addressed, but try to use the word "scope" in the abstract - as in a work breakdown structure is a tool used breakdown the scope of a project

	'''Purpose explanation''' ~~Good~~, but ~~needs development. Consider~~:		'''Purpose explanation''' Well explained, but consider:

	<ol>		<ol>

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-16T12:53:47Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 16 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

	'''Text clarity''' Text is good, but avoid writing bullet points in the abstract~~. The~~ text should flow		'''Text clarity''' Text is good, but avoid writing bullet points in the abstract - the text should flow

	'''Language''' Good		'''Language''' Good

	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' ~~well~~ addressed, but try to use the word "scope" in the abstract - as in a work breakdown structure is a tool used breakdown the scope of a project		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Well addressed, but try to use the word "scope" in the abstract - as in a work breakdown structure is a tool used breakdown the scope of a project

	'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but needs development. Consider:		'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but needs development. Consider:

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is good, but avoid writing bullet points in the abstract. The text should flow '''Language''' Good '''Description of t..."

2018-02-16T12:53:25Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is good, but avoid writing bullet points in the abstract. The text should flow '''Language''' Good '''Description of t..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity''' Text is good, but avoid writing bullet points in the abstract. The text should flow

'''Language''' Good

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' well addressed, but try to use the word "scope" in the abstract - as in a work breakdown structure is a tool used breakdown the scope of a project

'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but needs development. Consider:

<ol>
<li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?
</ol>

'''References''' Missing references to the list of mandatory references/standards

'''Relevance of article''' Consider the following:

<ol>
<li> It is okay to use examples from the Metro Cityring project, but remember it is '''not''' allowed to write the article as a case study. The course requirements have changed
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
</ol>