Talk:Financial appraisal of project proposals
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' Good | '''Quality of the summary:''' Good | ||
| − | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? |
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | + | Yes, nothing. | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? |
| − | Is there a logical flow to the article? | + | Is there a logical flow to the article? |
| − | Does one part build upon the other? | + | Does one part build upon the other? |
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| Line 50: | Line 49: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? |
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | + | I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement. | |
| + | |||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? |
| − | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? |
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | + | Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections. | |
| + | Nothing to improve | ||
| + | |||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? |
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | + | I believe it is relevant, especially for our group project. | |
| + | Yes, it is made in the abstract. | ||
| + | Nothing | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| − | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? |
| − | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? |
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | + | Yes, yes, nothing. | |
| + | |||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? |
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | + | Yes, yes, yes | |
| + | I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings. | ||
| + | |||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ||
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 15:05, 18 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good, with some minor errors e.g. write "to evaluate" instead of "to evaluates." Re-read the abstract
Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow, but the image is too small to read. In most cases, I would personally recommend to not use diagrams in abstracts, but rather move them to a "background" section where the tool is more thoroughly explained
Purpose explanation Good, but consider:
- Is this tool primarily applied for portfolio or program management?
- Who is the reader? Project or Program manager or any project team member?
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article It is relevant. Consider the following:
- Try to link it to a knowledge area of project/program/portfolio management
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Piotr
Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary: Good
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 Yes, nothing.
Question 2 · TEXT
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 Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes.
Question 3 · TEXT
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 I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement.
Question 4 · TEXT
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 Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections. Nothing to improve
Question 5 · TEXT
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 I believe it is relevant, especially for our group project. Yes, it is made in the abstract. Nothing
Question 6 · TEXT
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 Yes, yes, nothing.
Question 7 · TEXT
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 Yes, yes, yes I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
Question 1 · TEXT
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 · TEXT
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 · TEXT
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 · TEXT
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 · TEXT
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 · TEXT
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 · TEXT
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
