Talk:Due Diligence on Wind Farm Assets

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is coherent. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good. |- |'''Article purpose explanatio...")
 
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|'''References'''|| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.
 
|'''References'''|| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Edoardo Braccini''==
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
 +
 +
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 +
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
 +
 +
Is the argument clear?  Yes
 +
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
 +
 +
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
I would explain how each step affect positively the project management.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
It appears to me that there are some repetitions and in one sentence the tenses don't match.
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear? yes
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
I would add some more figures
 +
 +
===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?  yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
 +
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 +
'''Depth of treatment:'''
 +
 +
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
 +
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
 +
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
I would add a linked references instead of the numbers.
 +
 +
==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''

Revision as of 16:28, 24 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language The text is coherent.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good.
Article purpose explanation Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted.
Relevance to curriculum Irrelevant at this point. A clear link to project/program/portfolio management still needs to be made (e.g. project business case etc). This article shouldn't focus on investment management.
References Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Yes

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

I would explain how each step affect positively the project management.

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

It appears to me that there are some repetitions and in one sentence the tenses don't match.

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

I would add some more figures

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? yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

I would add a linked references instead of the numbers.

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

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Due_Diligence_on_Wind_Farm_Assets&oldid=66268"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox