Talk:Future workshop method
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Gustavo Pagliari Valerio dos Santos''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights a...") |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Gustavo Pagliari Valerio dos Santos) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The introduction is well articulated, although some better description of what the concept of workshop means in this case could improve its quality even more. Giving some small insights about the possible constraints of the method's application already at this point of the article can also be interesting.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is so far very well structured. The sections are really well connected and consistent. Just a brief input about why it is called 'Future Workshop' in the History section could be interesting (if there is information available in that regard).'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Be aware of the lack of commas in some sentences, as it can often compromise their semantics.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The structure in bullet points is very positive for the reader to follow the outline of the presented method. Also the added figure gives a good illustration of how the framework of method can be prepared.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The topic is highly applicable for both practical and academic contexts, and its importance is well sustained in the whole of the text. No big changes on the structure of the article should be done, as its outline is already very well configured.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No deep suggestions here. As mentioned in Q5, the article has some high importance for both practical and academic contexts. Still, a good idea could be to add one or two examples of cases in which the method was applied, so as to exemplify its effectiveness'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The references are still to be uploaded. From the citations and content so far, the article seems to have some reasonably good bibliographic basis.'' |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==General Comment== | ||
| + | Please notice that the critics I have made here are aiming to further improve your article. In general, I found it really good and well structured so far. Keep the same line, and after some small improvement it can be great! | ||
Revision as of 23:31, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Gustavo Pagliari Valerio dos Santos
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 introduction is well articulated, although some better description of what the concept of workshop means in this case could improve its quality even more. Giving some small insights about the possible constraints of the method's application already at this point of the article can also be interesting.
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 is so far very well structured. The sections are really well connected and consistent. Just a brief input about why it is called 'Future Workshop' in the History section could be interesting (if there is information available in that regard).
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
Be aware of the lack of commas in some sentences, as it can often compromise their semantics.
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 structure in bullet points is very positive for the reader to follow the outline of the presented method. Also the added figure gives a good illustration of how the framework of method can be prepared.
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 topic is highly applicable for both practical and academic contexts, and its importance is well sustained in the whole of the text. No big changes on the structure of the article should be done, as its outline is already very well configured.
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
No deep suggestions here. As mentioned in Q5, the article has some high importance for both practical and academic contexts. Still, a good idea could be to add one or two examples of cases in which the method was applied, so as to exemplify its effectiveness
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 references are still to be uploaded. From the citations and content so far, the article seems to have some reasonably good bibliographic basis.
General Comment
Please notice that the critics I have made here are aiming to further improve your article. In general, I found it really good and well structured so far. Keep the same line, and after some small improvement it can be great!
