Talk:Manage Extreme Projects with Rapid Methodology

Revision as of 21:34, 22 September 2015

Review given by StephSalling, review2

Formal aspects

• The article follows the “method” structure very well.
• There are some grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, maybe an extra proofreading would be a good idea (maybe by someone else, it is often helpful having a second pair of eyes read it through).
• The article is written in an engaging style in terms of content, but some sentences are a bit long and hard to follow.
• The figure is very illustrative, but a reference to the source for it might be a good idea. More figures would improve the reading experience, but I do not know if it is possible to find other relevant figures.
• Very nice use of table and bullet points.

Content aspects

• I think the article is interesting for a practitioner.
• The topic is clear and specific.
• The length of the article seems appropriate.
• There is a red thread through the article, however, the transition from XPM to Rapid Methodology could be smoother.
• The starting summary is sufficient and not too long.
• Your sources seem good and of high quality. You could maybe elaborate some of them (the “annotated bibliography” part).
• The use of the word “we” in some sentences is a bit confusing for me as it mixes up your “own opinion” with statements substantiated by literature.

Reviewer 3: s141586

In general, very good article with an interesting topic and good flow, but needs improvement.

Formal:
• The article follows a clear “method” structure.
• In general, too long sentences. I have detected many grammatical errors, needs proofreading.
• The use of the form “we” it does not sounds very good in an academic article, I would rather use the passive form to express the same (Overview section)
• Well-referenced and good use of quotes from authors.
• Some more figures would be useful
• Well formatted. Wiki references.

Content:
• It is a very interesting topic for a practitioner, but I have the feeling that some of the statements are being repeated in too many paragraphs (specially the ones defining the XPM).
• The length seems to be ok, even that is around 2500 words. It has a good flow.
• I miss a “limitations” paragraph, were you explain the weaknesses of the XPM or when to apply it.
• In general, I think it is a good idea to find some examples of XPM projects, and explain a little about one or two cases.
• I think it would be good to describe each of the sources with few lines, explaining about the paper and the author.
• It is hard to distinguish between your opinion and the theory; maybe you should clarify it in the discussion section.