Talk:Requirements management

Revision as of 15:47, 25 November 2014

NobodyKnows Peer Review

• Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors?
• Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long-winded, hard-to-follow mega-sentences?
• Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure?
• Are the figures clear and understandable?
• Are the figures free of formal errors (e.g. labeling of axes in diagrams)?
• Are the figures referenced in the text?
• Does the author have the copyright or right to use the figures (e.g. through Creative Common Non-Commercial Share Alike attribution?)
• Is the article formatted properly, i.e. are the typical Wiki-features such as sub-headings, proper bullet-point list, and Wiki-style references used? Are graphics, videos etc. integrated correctly?
• Is the article interesting for a practitioner?
• Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic?
• Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to?
• Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.)
• Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread?
• Is the starting summary appropriate for the article?
• Does the article provide sufficient sources and reference material?
• Are sources and reference material of high quality? I.e., does the article mostly rely on books, journal articles, standards, and to some degree on high-quality websites, instead of “blog posts”?
• Does the article link to other relevant pages in the APPPM wiki?
• Is “own opinion” clearly differentiated from statements substantiated by literature?
• Does the article seem to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism?