Talk:Management of Project Change
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*The pictures are a little small; the text can be hard to read. So adjusting them up would improve the quality. | *The pictures are a little small; the text can be hard to read. So adjusting them up would improve the quality. | ||
*I would suggest to make a own section about limitation of the tool, so that there is more discussion and not just explanation of theories. | *I would suggest to make a own section about limitation of the tool, so that there is more discussion and not just explanation of theories. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''s103183, Reviewer 3:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Overall a very nice article. It easy to understand and follow the flow of the article. | ||
| + | * You have some nice models and you explain them well. However you might want to change ”Model 2” to ”Model 3” in the section ”The value for money (value and cost) phase). | ||
| + | * Some places the wording is a bit weird or some words are missing like ”the changes not will result”. It is also called the fourth and fifth where you mention the activities from Model 2. I think these mistakes are a typo but try to read the article again in a day or two and pay attention as it can be disturbing when reading the article. | ||
| + | * One of the things I feel like is missing from the article is a Limitation section where you discuss some of the limitations regarding the topic. | ||
| + | * It seems as something went wrong with the reference list. Maybe take a look at some of the other articles and see how they have used their references. I would also like if you could put in references for the models you use. | ||
| + | * I would recommend adding an ”Annotated Bibliography” as it is expected according to the guidelines for the articles. | ||
Revision as of 20:18, 22 September 2015
Mette: I like your idea. It seems like you want to look at different theories, model and methods in your article for have to manage project changes, but maybe you should consider to just focus on one or two model/method. This way it is possible to go deeper with the chosen model(s) and to discuss the differens between the use of the models.
Contents |
s150799 reviewer nr.1
Overall impression:
- The article has a good structure, correct use of the Wiki-style. There is a good balance of the different topics.
- Good use of examples, it makes it easy to understand the concept.
- Good explanation too graphical illustration in the text, this gives a good overall appearance and is highly effective.
- “Management of Project Change” is an interesting project management tool, and the text explain it so it is easily understood.
Improvement areas:
- There are some grammatical errors. Mostly spelling and some sentences that are missing words like “the, are, is”. To increase the flow for the reader this should be corrected. For example :”… very difficult thing master.,” where “to” is missing to complete the sentence.
- To me the reference list is not easy to understand, but it is most likely not completed.
- There is no annotated bibliography or description of limitation of this tool before the conclusion.
Suggestion of improvement:
- The reference list should maintain name of the author, the name of the page the article is collected and sometimes the date it is read. This is so that it is easier to quickly see where the source is from, and if it is legit.
- The pictures are a little small; the text can be hard to read. So adjusting them up would improve the quality.
- I would suggest to make a own section about limitation of the tool, so that there is more discussion and not just explanation of theories.
s103183, Reviewer 3:
- Overall a very nice article. It easy to understand and follow the flow of the article.
- You have some nice models and you explain them well. However you might want to change ”Model 2” to ”Model 3” in the section ”The value for money (value and cost) phase).
- Some places the wording is a bit weird or some words are missing like ”the changes not will result”. It is also called the fourth and fifth where you mention the activities from Model 2. I think these mistakes are a typo but try to read the article again in a day or two and pay attention as it can be disturbing when reading the article.
- One of the things I feel like is missing from the article is a Limitation section where you discuss some of the limitations regarding the topic.
- It seems as something went wrong with the reference list. Maybe take a look at some of the other articles and see how they have used their references. I would also like if you could put in references for the models you use.
- I would recommend adding an ”Annotated Bibliography” as it is expected according to the guidelines for the articles.
