Talk:Managing projects in a functional organization
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The summary is well structured and clear in explaining the flow of the article through the key points '' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is consistent and there is a logical flow but from the title and the abstract, I was expecting something more related to the argument of the project management in the functional organization rather than the explanations of everything you mention (like for example the explanations of the six performance aspects). I would like to see more connection between the project management and the functional organization rather than general project management concepts, I know that is not the final version but try to give more space to the functional organization and less "background theory"'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''In the text there are only minor grammatical and spelling errors, you can easily check them by using "Grammarly". The language is clear.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The figures are clear and they are summarizing the key points, they are used only when necessary, good :)'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''As I said in answer 2 keep working!'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It could be significant, just stick to the abstract'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good'' |
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ||
Latest revision as of 20:15, 24 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Ok |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Needs to be elaborated. Should be more specific |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant but make sure you keep it within project management and not about organizational management/theory. |
| References | Ok |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Costanza Sesti
[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 summary is well structured and clear in explaining the flow of the article through the key points
[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 consistent and there is a logical flow but from the title and the abstract, I was expecting something more related to the argument of the project management in the functional organization rather than the explanations of everything you mention (like for example the explanations of the six performance aspects). I would like to see more connection between the project management and the functional organization rather than general project management concepts, I know that is not the final version but try to give more space to the functional organization and less "background theory"
[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
In the text there are only minor grammatical and spelling errors, you can easily check them by using "Grammarly". The language is clear.
[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
The figures are clear and they are summarizing the key points, they are used only when necessary, good :)
[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
As I said in answer 2 keep working!
[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
It could be significant, just stick to the abstract
[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
Good
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
