Talk:Meeting strategies
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager. | In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Lima Parhiz''== | ||
| + | ===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 good. The key focus is pointed out and the flow is ok. Isn’t the “About the article” be a part of the abstract? This part also points of some of the points that could be in the abstract. You could consider merging the two parts. I think you repeat yourself a little bit in the last part. You start writing about the guidelines but jump to the study made by Microsoft and then back again to the guidelines. Maybe you could rearrange these parts so you don’t jump back-and-forth in the text. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie answer: Abstract is changed now. The two parts are merged and the Microsoft study moved further down in article with similar study results. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 not complete but from what you have written in the abstract/about the article then the flow seems logical as it makes sense to look at the project phases in the beginning and then go over to the strategies.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 language is fine, however there are some minor spelling and grammatical errors. The language is precise and there aren’t unnecessary fill words. You manage to express your points in an understandable and precise way. The only suggestion I have is that you should look through your text for spelling/grammatical errors when you are completely done with the article.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | '' The first figure is ok. The second figure is too blurry, which makes it difficult to read some of the words in the figure. Remember to add references to figures. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie I deleted both figures and made my own. I have used references for inspiration. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''You might haven’t gotten to that part yet but it has not been made a 100% clear why it is important to implement meeting strategies. Is it possible for the PM to hold meetings without having any strategies? I think the reason of having meeting strategies should be explicit in the text. | ||
| + | Is the link between the project phases and the strategies also going to be made clear?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie The link between project phases and meeting strategies should be clearer now. The reason for doing this is to avoid failing meetings. I addressed this comment by making a part in article with data from companies from scientific studies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''I think it is interesting for practioners/academics to read about meeting strategies. It is a basic part of doing projects but if a large part of the meetings that are held fails (as stated in the article) then its relevant for people to read up on the subject in order to improve the quality of their meetings. It is limited how much I can say about the article as it isn’t finished yet but it seems interesting. The main focus should be in the PM point of view.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 reference list is given at the end of the article. The references seem to be based on empirical data rather than opinions. You probably haven’t gotten to that part yet but your main text after the abstract is lacking references and so is your figures.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie: All of the article contains references now. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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=== | ||
| + | The abstract and "about this article" part are clear and comprehensive. You should explain more why you are elaborating on project phases and the link between those and meetings themselves. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie: this should be linked better now (also commented in first feedback) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 presentation of different methods techniques seems organised altough not yet developped. The flow is logical except on why you are presenting project phases in the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie: this should be linked better now (also commented in first feedback) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 and style are good to me. Vocabulary is professionnal and elaborated. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Figures and tables on project meeting aren't uploaded yet. The one for the project phases part are really comprehensive and adapted. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie: Both figures has been deleted and new ones added. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | If the article developped effectively state of the art methods for project meeting as said in the bastract, I think it will the most useful article in the whole wiki for professionals. Why it is relevant is made perfectly clear in the abstract. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Article isn't finished yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | There are no references for the project meeting parts yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Julie: there are references now. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:13, 26 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your annotated bibliography section are references.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Lima Parhiz
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The abstract is good. The key focus is pointed out and the flow is ok. Isn’t the “About the article” be a part of the abstract? This part also points of some of the points that could be in the abstract. You could consider merging the two parts. I think you repeat yourself a little bit in the last part. You start writing about the guidelines but jump to the study made by Microsoft and then back again to the guidelines. Maybe you could rearrange these parts so you don’t jump back-and-forth in the text.
- Julie answer: Abstract is changed now. The two parts are merged and the Microsoft study moved further down in article with similar study results.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The article is not complete but from what you have written in the abstract/about the article then the flow seems logical as it makes sense to look at the project phases in the beginning and then go over to the strategies.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
The language is fine, however there are some minor spelling and grammatical errors. The language is precise and there aren’t unnecessary fill words. You manage to express your points in an understandable and precise way. The only suggestion I have is that you should look through your text for spelling/grammatical errors when you are completely done with the article.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables: Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
The first figure is ok. The second figure is too blurry, which makes it difficult to read some of the words in the figure. Remember to add references to figures.
- Julie I deleted both figures and made my own. I have used references for inspiration.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
You might haven’t gotten to that part yet but it has not been made a 100% clear why it is important to implement meeting strategies. Is it possible for the PM to hold meetings without having any strategies? I think the reason of having meeting strategies should be explicit in the text. Is the link between the project phases and the strategies also going to be made clear?
- Julie The link between project phases and meeting strategies should be clearer now. The reason for doing this is to avoid failing meetings. I addressed this comment by making a part in article with data from companies from scientific studies.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
I think it is interesting for practioners/academics to read about meeting strategies. It is a basic part of doing projects but if a large part of the meetings that are held fails (as stated in the article) then its relevant for people to read up on the subject in order to improve the quality of their meetings. It is limited how much I can say about the article as it isn’t finished yet but it seems interesting. The main focus should be in the PM point of view.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
The reference list is given at the end of the article. The references seem to be based on empirical data rather than opinions. You probably haven’t gotten to that part yet but your main text after the abstract is lacking references and so is your figures.
- Julie: All of the article contains references now.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The abstract and "about this article" part are clear and comprehensive. You should explain more why you are elaborating on project phases and the link between those and meetings themselves.
- Julie: this should be linked better now (also commented in first feedback)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The presentation of different methods techniques seems organised altough not yet developped. The flow is logical except on why you are presenting project phases in the article.
- Julie: this should be linked better now (also commented in first feedback)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Grammar and style are good to me. Vocabulary is professionnal and elaborated.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
Figures and tables on project meeting aren't uploaded yet. The one for the project phases part are really comprehensive and adapted.
- Julie: Both figures has been deleted and new ones added.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
If the article developped effectively state of the art methods for project meeting as said in the bastract, I think it will the most useful article in the whole wiki for professionals. Why it is relevant is made perfectly clear in the abstract.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
Article isn't finished yet.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
There are no references for the project meeting parts yet.
- Julie: there are references now.
