Talk:The Sprint Methodology in Agile Project Management
Oliver.amb (Talk | contribs) (→Answer 3) |
Oliver.amb (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Oliver Adam Mølskov Bech) |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
*Good syntax and consistency in terms of referencing, however there is one small error in reference [5] under "Motivation". | *Good syntax and consistency in terms of referencing, however there is one small error in reference [5] under "Motivation". | ||
*Change the word generically to generally under "Motivation". Generically means "not specifically". | *Change the word generically to generally under "Motivation". Generically means "not specifically". | ||
| + | *Be consistent with using capital case throughout the text, for example, "Scrum" is sometimes capital and other times not. | ||
| + | *These are minor issues but worth noting nonetheless. | ||
'' | '' | ||
Revision as of 19:53, 19 February 2018
Text clarity The text sounds coherent
Language Good, but can be improved - e.g. what do you mean by "..ensures that the project continues being rentable?"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but consider adding a brief one liner explaining what exactly agile project management is. Also, see my comment about risk management and how it fits in Agile Project Management under "General"
Purpose explanation Well addressed and the article structure is outlined, but who is your reader? Is it the project manager? Does this apply article apply to a specific industry?
Title of the Wiki Good title
References References seem valid, but research how you can appropriately reference the mandatory reference list suggested in the course. You don't have to reference all them, only the appropriate ones
General Good and clear structure. I would be cautious about including two big topics, risk management and agile project management, in one article. Remember that the article needs to be address a knowledge are in enough depth to be relevant and interesting for a project practitioner. I would clearly then frame it as risk management within the context of agile project management in the abstract and throughout the article - I can see you briefly did so, but try to make it crystal clear for the reader
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Oliver Adam Mølskov Bech
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 introduces the reader to the key topic of this article, the "Sprint Methodology", proceeding to discuss its importance and relevance within project management. The last two sentences of the abstract clearly define the scope and aim of the article. Overall, a good abstract/summary, however the language could be improved (discussed further in question 3).
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
Overall, the argument is clear and the structure of the article is logical to follow. The article introduces agile project management and then digs deeper into scrum and sprint management. This allows one part to build upon the next. However, I would consider moving the "Motivation" section before the "Agile Project Management" section. Additionally, I would consider inserting more sub-topics to guide the reader and categorise the article into different elements. For example, "Scrum and Sprint Management" is one heading, I as a reader, would personally have preferred two headings clearly introducing me to the "Scrum Process" and subsequently the "Sprint Methodology" as this would have made it more clear that the sprint activity is a part of the scrum process. Furthermore, adding more headings to your article will also make it easier for the reader to navigate through the table of contents to immediately locate sections relevant to him/her.
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
The writing is to a high quality, however there is room for improvement in terms and grammar and language. Some suggestions of improvement are:
- Under "Abstract": using the word "evident" in the sentence "which makes agile project management an evident way" does not make sense. Perhaps the word you are looking for is "appropriate" or "suitable"?
- Revise the first sentence under "Abstract". This sentence is fairly unclear and it is important to not confuse the reader from the off-set.
- Good syntax and consistency in terms of referencing, however there is one small error in reference [5] under "Motivation".
- Change the word generically to generally under "Motivation". Generically means "not specifically".
- Be consistent with using capital case throughout the text, for example, "Scrum" is sometimes capital and other times not.
- These are minor issues but worth noting nonetheless.
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
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
