Revision as of 21:51, 25 November 2014

Hermaeus Mora

General

• The article is formatted in a proper wiki fashion. The headings, lists and graphics are used correctly.
• Graphics used are relevant and clear. The 'Stage gate model' is borrowed from an article, it has a reference embedded in the graphic however it's also possible to add references to a figure in wiki. Same regards the 'Gephi network visualization'.
• Regarding the abstract, perhaps it doesn't need a heading and since the APPPM wiki is supposed to be developed over the coming years the phrase "Two years ago" should be put in absolute terms.
• As for the language used. Overall it's understandable, which is good. All the words and expressions are used in the proper context, however...
  • There are multiple grammar errors. Fortunately they are rather small, mostly regarding singular and plural forms, however although small they are still striking for the reader. This should be easily amendable with a grammar check in Word or google docs.
  • The structure of the language is at times informal. There are sentences which can be misinterpreted at first e.g. The system insures low health services prices for all the citizens. while others like For example, a network mapping of the company can enable the directors to be aware of informal links between employees from different department and this can be a good starting point to involve this employees in a cross functional project concerning this departments. should be divided in two for better understanding.
  • I can see that the author uses his/her English to the best possible extent so I would suggest that a native speaker/very proficient user has a quick glance at the text to correct the formulation of some sentences. Quoting The Ghost Writer (2010) "Well all the words are there, they're just in the wrong order." (some of them;)

Content

• Personally I found this article a very interesting read. It's relevant to PPPM and describes an ongoing issue.
• The abstract provides a good overview of the articles content.
• The structure is really clear. Author smoothly goes from one part to the other i.e. what is discussed, what's the situation, who's involved, what's the challenge, how to solve it and what will that achieve.
• The article falls under the case study write-up category. It's not just 100% informative though as after the introduction the author covers the possible solutions to the existing problem. It seems like an evaluation made by the author however it might as well be a description of the feedback from an advisor company.
• References. There are five hard references given, however they regard only the tools and concepts described not the actual content. Course 42490 TEMO is referred to yet nothing more than that. This is something that should be addressed because statements such as: "most of them [functional managers] have no skills and experience in project management." should be backed up by some data/references, else they simply become strong opinions. Moreover there is a reference to a software package 'Gephi', it could be nice to have a link to the owner.

Review from Xyz

Formal 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?
o Are the figures free of formal errors(e.g. labeling of axes in diagrams)?
o Are the figures referenced in the text?
o 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? Content:

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 see map propriate? 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 through out 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 APPPMwiki?
o Is “own opinion” clearly differentiated from statements substantiated by literature? o Does the article seem to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism?