Talk:DMAIC
(→Feedback on Abstract:) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|'''References'''|| Make sure to add references wherever needed. | |'''References'''|| Make sure to add references wherever needed. | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mads Mohr Madsen | ||
| + | Question 1 | ||
| + | Quality of the summary: | ||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | * A: Yes. | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | * A: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 2 | ||
| + | Structure and logic of the article: | ||
| + | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | * A: stucture is fine | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 3 | ||
| + | Grammar and style: | ||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 4 | ||
| + | Figures and tables: | ||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | * A: its quite big. However, are you sure you are allowed to use it? Maybe check this with the TA's. | ||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | * A: talk more about the figure, rather than just "check the figure if you need to see when to use this tool" | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 5 | ||
| + | Interest and relevance: | ||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | * A: medium | ||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| + | * A: no. There could have been more about when to use this method and when not to, pros and cons stuff like that. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 6 | ||
| + | Depth of treatment: | ||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| + | * A: no | ||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| + | * A: no | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 7 | ||
| + | Annotated bibliography: | ||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| + | * A: yes | ||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| + | * A: no and there is mainly websites, where as in this course they have said quite clearly that they prefer books. | ||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| + | * A: Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | General comment: | ||
| + | I think it is a fine article, however I think it is introducing a lot of tools very briefly. I think a discussion on when to use these or a deeper presentation of some of the tools would make it a lot stronger. | ||
Revision as of 19:36, 24 February 2019
Feedback on Abstract:
I'm unsure whether or not your abstract at this point is complete, however find my feedback below.
| Text clarity & language | Good, however there's a few mistakes (e.g. "it is almost impossible to measure and improve, if you do now know where to start." - you probably meant "if you do not know where to start.") |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Make sure to add references wherever needed. |
Mads Mohr Madsen Question 1 Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
- A: Yes.
What would you suggest to improve?
- A:
Question 2
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
- A: yes
Is there a logical flow to the article?
- A: yes
Does one part build upon the other?
- A: yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
- A: yes
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: stucture is fine
Question 3
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
- A: yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
- A: yes
Question 4 Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear?
- A: its quite big. However, are you sure you are allowed to use it? Maybe check this with the TA's.
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
- A: yes
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: talk more about the figure, rather than just "check the figure if you need to see when to use this tool"
Question 5
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
- A: medium
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
- A: no. There could have been more about when to use this method and when not to, pros and cons stuff like that.
Question 6
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
- A: no
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
- A: no
Question 7
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
- A: yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
- A: no and there is mainly websites, where as in this course they have said quite clearly that they prefer books.
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
- A: Yes
General comment: I think it is a fine article, however I think it is introducing a lot of tools very briefly. I think a discussion on when to use these or a deeper presentation of some of the tools would make it a lot stronger.
