Talk:The Triple Constraint in Project Management
(→Feedback on Abstract:) |
(→Feedback on Abstract:) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Shri Tejas Vedula''== |
| + | ===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? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 1 | + | ===Answer 1=== |
| − | It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ? | + | ''It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ? '' |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | |
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is | + | Is the argument clear? |
| − | + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | |
| − | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | + | Does one part build upon the other? |
| + | |||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 2 | + | ===Answer 2=== |
| − | Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections. | + | ''Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections.'' |
| − | Question 3 · TEXT | + | |
| − | Grammar and style: | + | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== |
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 3 | + | ===Answer 3=== |
| − | Answer here | + | ''Answer here'' |
| − | Question 4 · TEXT | + | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== |
| − | Figures and tables: | + | '''Figures and tables:''' |
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? |
| − | 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? |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 4 | + | ===Answer 4=== |
| − | Answer here | + | ''Answer here'' |
| − | Question 5 · TEXT | + | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== |
| − | 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? |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 5 | + | ===Answer 5=== |
| − | Answer here | + | ''Answer here'' |
| − | Question 6 · TEXT | + | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== |
| − | 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? |
| − | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 6 | + | ===Answer 6=== |
| − | Answer here | + | ''Answer here'' |
| − | Question 7 · TEXT | + | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== |
| − | Annotated bibliography: | + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' |
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? |
| − | 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? |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 7 | + | ===Answer 7=== |
| − | Answer here | + | ''Answer here'' |
Revision as of 11:42, 24 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good - few misspellings though |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good but a looks like you are missing references in the first line |
| Other |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Shri Tejas Vedula
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
It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ?
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
Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections.
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
