Talk:Need-Based Theories of Motivation
(→Answer 7) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli) |
||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. '' | ''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''== | ||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''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? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Key focus is clearly on value proposition canvas. However, the 2nd part of summary begins to describe the canvas into detail. | ||
| + | Maybe this part should move a little further down in article? Instead, a suggestion is to be more general, summarizing points/insights in this part. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | N/A | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | - Make a part early in the article explaining the whole canvas | ||
| + | - Use examples to bridge the gap between theory and practice | ||
| + | - Be critical towards the method and look into who/what kind of project this is really valuable for | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | I would avoid using "pain" and "gain". If you want to include this, then I suggest to elaborate this. What is it that a customer avoids when "how the products aid their customers and relieve them of their ‘pain’"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | The figure in text now is as it should be :-) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | Yes especially if it bridges the gap between practical and academics, then it could be useful in a project. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| + | Not yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | Write the rest of the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| + | Not yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | As mentioned before: | ||
| + | - bridge gap between practical and academics | ||
| + | - be critical | ||
| + | |||
| + | And | ||
| + | - focus on management | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| + | No | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | Look at slides regarding annotated bibliograpy | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | ''Answer here'' | ||
Revision as of 17:42, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli
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
The abstract is a bit unclear and too wild. I would suggest to look into how is it connected to project/program/portfolio management, how can it be incorporated to project management processes and how can it be useful for a project manager. I would suggest to elaborate on the structure of the article a bit more so it would be easier to understand the article flow.
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
The article parts do not really build upon each other. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and move the draft chapter under big idea. It nice to start with the background/history and maybe add some more explanation about the usage and the relevance of the theories under this chapter. The list of the theories could be moved under application, with adding how is it used and why is it relevant. It would be nice to additionally compare the theories to each other.
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
Grammar is okay apart from a few spelling mistakes.
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
The figures are not really illustrative, it would make more sense to either make your own tables or write down the content of the tables in the text. I would suggest to add figure text and references to every figure/table.
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
The article is need to elaborate further on why and how is the theories relevant. I would suggest to find a case study and illustrate the theories with the help of it.
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
The article is very general, right now is more like a description of the theories. An improvement could be to make it more precise, connect it more to project management and explain step by step how they could be used by project managers for example.
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
The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen
Question 1 · TEXT
NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th.
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?
Key focus is clearly on value proposition canvas. However, the 2nd part of summary begins to describe the canvas into detail. Maybe this part should move a little further down in article? Instead, a suggestion is to be more general, summarizing points/insights in this part.
Answer 1
Answer here
Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? N/A
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? - Make a part early in the article explaining the whole canvas - Use examples to bridge the gap between theory and practice - Be critical towards the method and look into who/what kind of project this is really valuable for
Answer 2
Answer here
Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? I would avoid using "pain" and "gain". If you want to include this, then I suggest to elaborate this. What is it that a customer avoids when "how the products aid their customers and relieve them of their ‘pain’"?
Answer 3
Answer here
Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? The figure in text now is as it should be :-)
Answer 4
Answer here
Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes especially if it bridges the gap between practical and academics, then it could be useful in a project.
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Not yet.
What would you suggest to improve? Write the rest of the article.
Answer 5
Answer here
Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Not yet.
What would you suggest to improve? As mentioned before: - bridge gap between practical and academics - be critical
And - focus on management
Answer 6
Answer here
Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? No
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? Look at slides regarding annotated bibliograpy
Answer 7
Answer here
