Talk:Lencioni’s pyramid of team dysfunctions
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Matthew Wells == ===Question 1=== ====Quality of the summary:==== Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the artic...") |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
====Quality of the summary:==== | ====Quality of the summary:==== | ||
| − | 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? N/A |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? N/A |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| Line 13: | Line 11: | ||
====Structure and logic of the article:==== | ====Structure and logic of the article:==== | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? N/A |
| − | Is there a logical flow to the article? | + | Is there a logical flow to the article? N/A |
| − | Does one part build upon the other? | + | Does one part build upon the other? N/A |
| − | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? N/A |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? N/A |
| − | |||
===Question 3 === | ===Question 3 === | ||
====Grammar and style:==== | ====Grammar and style:==== | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? N/A |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? N/A |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? N/A |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| Line 40: | Line 35: | ||
====Figures and tables:==== | ====Figures and tables:==== | ||
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? N/A |
| − | 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? N/A |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? N/A |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| Line 52: | Line 45: | ||
====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? N/A |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? N/A |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? N/A |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| Line 64: | Line 55: | ||
====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? N/A |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? N/A | |
| − | + | What would you suggest to improve? N/A | |
| Line 76: | Line 65: | ||
====Annotated bibliography:==== | ====Annotated bibliography:==== | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? N/A |
| − | 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? N/A |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? N/A |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? N/A |
| − | |||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here == | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here == | ||
Revision as of 20:47, 19 February 2018
Contents
|
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Matthew Wells
Question 1
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? N/A
What would you suggest to improve? N/A
Question 2
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? N/A
Is there a logical flow to the article? N/A
Does one part build upon the other? N/A
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? N/A
What would you suggest to improve? N/A
Question 3
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? N/A
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? N/A
What would you suggest to improve? N/A
Question 4
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? N/A
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? N/A
What would you suggest to improve? N/A
Question 5
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? N/A
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? N/A
What would you suggest to improve? N/A
Question 6
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? N/A
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? N/A
What would you suggest to improve? N/A
Question 7
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? N/A
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? N/A
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? N/A
What would you suggest to improve? N/A
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
Question 1
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
Question 2
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
Question 3
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
Question 4
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
Question 5
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
Question 6
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
Question 7
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
