Talk:Leadership vs. management
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | ''The summary is really good with an introduction to different perspectives. I still miss the part where you say that you are going for example to discuss about managent vs leadership in project, program or portfolio management. Could maybe be too broad if you begin discussing about all of the three. They certainly have different perspectives on this topic. But I guess you have chosen Project management as you begin writing about it further down. But I would suggest to | + | '''More feedback will be provided later on'''.''The summary is really good with an introduction to different perspectives. I still miss the part where you say that you are going for example to discuss about managent vs leadership in project, program or portfolio management. Could maybe be too broad if you begin discussing about all of the three. They certainly have different perspectives on this topic. But I guess you have chosen Project management as you begin writing about it further down. But I would suggest to mention it in the summary as well'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I think overall it looks good. I just think that you mention some tools and I think definetly you should show some tools and how these can improve or define leadership styles etc. And also it would help to have some figures to support the understanding sometimes.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The language is really good. I should learn something from it as I have a lot of misspellings :) '' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no figures or tables so far, so I can't evaluate them. '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Definitely something of high practical and academic relevance. Again I would suggest using/showing some tools. But I guess the article is not finished yet and this will come'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I think it is interesting to read, but '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 18:43, 24 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | Good. The text is coherent |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | The distinction between leadership and management is well described but no tool/theory/concept is described at the moment |
| Article purpose explanation | Needs to elaborated |
| Relevance to curriculum | At the moment the subject is not related to project, program or portfolio management and make sure you clearly define the scope of the article |
| References | Some references missing. Check the guidelines for references from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Heðin Gunnarsstein Poulsen
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
More feedback will be provided later on.The summary is really good with an introduction to different perspectives. I still miss the part where you say that you are going for example to discuss about managent vs leadership in project, program or portfolio management. Could maybe be too broad if you begin discussing about all of the three. They certainly have different perspectives on this topic. But I guess you have chosen Project management as you begin writing about it further down. But I would suggest to mention it in the summary as well
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
I think overall it looks good. I just think that you mention some tools and I think definetly you should show some tools and how these can improve or define leadership styles etc. And also it would help to have some figures to support the understanding sometimes.
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 really good. I should learn something from it as I have a lot of misspellings :)
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
There are no figures or tables so far, so I can't evaluate them.
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
Definitely something of high practical and academic relevance. Again I would suggest using/showing some tools. But I guess the article is not finished yet and this will come
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 to read, but
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
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Helene Gravdal
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
