Talk:Leadership vs. management
(→Answer 7) |
|||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The summary is clear, but I feel like some of the parts should be included in the background information instead? Moreover, I would like to get a better overview of how what to expect in the article. '' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The structure provided so far is the article is ok. I would like to have more background information, apart from the structure and definitions. Maybe write a few sentences about why you wrote about the different definitions in the background information, a type of introduction would be useful here. The logic of the report is good. '' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 142: | Line 142: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is easy to read, and the grammar is clear.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | '' Would be nice to see some figures and tables. '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It is a very intere'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The annotated bibliography provided so far is ok! '' |
Revision as of 21:05, 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 think you are telling a lot of theory which is good, but I just think that you should mention 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. The last comment is maybe kinda Also for a prettier layout
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 this article is interesting and is easy to read, but without a finished article it is kinda hard to say where you are going with this. But so far it is very good. '
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
It is stated that we need to use atleast 3 references in the annotated bibliography, so far I can only see one
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
The summary is clear, but I feel like some of the parts should be included in the background information instead? Moreover, I would like to get a better overview of how what to expect in the article.
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
The structure provided so far is the article is ok. I would like to have more background information, apart from the structure and definitions. Maybe write a few sentences about why you wrote about the different definitions in the background information, a type of introduction would be useful here. The logic of the report is good.
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 article is easy to read, and the grammar is clear.
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
Would be nice to see some figures and tables.
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
It is a very intere
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
The annotated bibliography provided so far is ok!
