Talk:Application of Agile
(→Answer 2) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen | + | '''Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen |
| + | ''' | ||
Question 1 | Question 1 | ||
Quality of the summary: | Quality of the summary: | ||
| − | + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | |
* A: Yes. | * A: Yes. | ||
| − | |||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
* A: Not using “is all over”. Use , and . more frequent. Wrong wording like “Agile in its full form is covering various aspects as” in stead of: “Agile is covering various aspects like the following”. Do not start a sentence with but or and. Do not use “All of these parts of” – use “These parts of” | * A: Not using “is all over”. Use , and . more frequent. Wrong wording like “Agile in its full form is covering various aspects as” in stead of: “Agile is covering various aspects like the following”. Do not start a sentence with but or and. Do not use “All of these parts of” – use “These parts of” | ||
| + | |||
Question 2 | Question 2 | ||
Structure and logic of the article: | Structure and logic of the article: | ||
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| − | A: No. | + | * A: No. |
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| − | A: Following the 12 steps are fine. The logical flow of jumping from 5 11 8 does not make sense without an explanation. | + | * A: Following the 12 steps are fine. The logical flow of jumping from 5 11 8 does not make sense without an explanation. |
Does one part build upon the other? | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| − | A: Yes, fine with the current skeleton. | + | * A: Yes, fine with the current skeleton. |
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| − | A: Arguments are made without a source. | + | * A: Arguments are made without a source. |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | A: Add sources, check for pluralis or singularis. Shorten the headlines. | + | * A: Add sources, check for pluralis or singularis. Shorten the headlines. |
| + | |||
Question 3 | Question 3 | ||
Grammar and style: | Grammar and style: | ||
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| − | A: No. | + | * A: No. |
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| − | A: No. Fill-words are used but not correctly. Example of a bad sentence: “Some frameworks focus more on some parts of Agile some applying all and yet some only applying fewer”. “It is here noted that it is very possible to integrate some parts of Agile without the others” | + | * A: No. Fill-words are used but not correctly. Example of a bad sentence: “Some frameworks focus more on some parts of Agile some applying all and yet some only applying fewer”. “It is here noted that it is very possible to integrate some parts of Agile without the others” |
| + | |||
Question 4 | Question 4 | ||
Figures and tables: | Figures and tables: | ||
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| − | A: A mix. One figure is to big to read and use, and the other one is not showing. | + | * A: A mix. One figure is to big to read and use, and the other one is not showing. |
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| − | A: No, since there is not description of the large bubbles. | + | * A: No, since there is not description of the large bubbles. |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | A: Make the figure visible. | + | * A: Make the figure visible. |
| + | |||
Question 5 | Question 5 | ||
Interest and relevance: | Interest and relevance: | ||
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| − | A: Medium. | + | * A: Medium. |
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| − | A: Yes, the description explains it quite good. | + | * A: Yes, the description explains it quite good. |
| + | |||
Question 6 | Question 6 | ||
Depth of treatment: | Depth of treatment: | ||
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| − | A: Unfortunately not. | + | * A: Unfortunately not. |
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| − | A: No. | + | * A: No. |
| + | |||
Question 7 | Question 7 | ||
Annotated bibliography: | Annotated bibliography: | ||
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| − | A: No. | + | * A: No. |
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| − | A: No. | + | * A: No. |
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| − | A: I cannot tell, since there is no reference. | + | * A: I cannot tell, since there is no reference. |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Maria Christina Prokou''== | ||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | ''Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Correct grammar mistakes like: | ||
| + | instead of 'management style etc. And ' use management style etc., while ' | ||
| + | instead of 'All of these parts of Agile is described' use 'These parts are described''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No | ||
| + | |||
| + | No the flow is complicated as there the 'Principles' are not in the correct order | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | No, as there are no sources | ||
| + | |||
| + | Add more sources '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No | ||
| + | |||
| + | No | ||
| + | |||
| + | Check grammar mistakes '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No, as one of them cannot be seen and the other one is not clear | ||
| + | |||
| + | No | ||
| + | |||
| + | Put more relevant figures and clear descriptions '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Not sure | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | -'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No | ||
| + | |||
| + | No | ||
| + | |||
| + | -'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No | ||
| + | |||
| + | No | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not sure | ||
| + | |||
| + | Add references '' | ||
Latest revision as of 10:33, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent, however there's a few grammatical errors (missing space). |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Very relevant. |
| References | Make sure to use the list of references whenever necessary. |
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen
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: Not using “is all over”. Use , and . more frequent. Wrong wording like “Agile in its full form is covering various aspects as” in stead of: “Agile is covering various aspects like the following”. Do not start a sentence with but or and. Do not use “All of these parts of” – use “These parts of”
Question 2
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
- A: No.
Is there a logical flow to the article?
- A: Following the 12 steps are fine. The logical flow of jumping from 5 11 8 does not make sense without an explanation.
Does one part build upon the other?
- A: Yes, fine with the current skeleton.
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
- A: Arguments are made without a source.
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: Add sources, check for pluralis or singularis. Shorten the headlines.
Question 3
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
- A: No.
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
- A: No. Fill-words are used but not correctly. Example of a bad sentence: “Some frameworks focus more on some parts of Agile some applying all and yet some only applying fewer”. “It is here noted that it is very possible to integrate some parts of Agile without the others”
Question 4
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
- A: A mix. One figure is to big to read and use, and the other one is not showing.
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
- A: No, since there is not description of the large bubbles.
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: Make the figure visible.
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: Yes, the description explains it quite good.
Question 6
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
- A: Unfortunately not.
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: No.
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
- A: No.
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
- A: I cannot tell, since there is no reference.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Maria Christina Prokou
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
[edit] Answer 1
Yes
Correct grammar mistakes like: instead of 'management style etc. And ' use management style etc., while ' instead of 'All of these parts of Agile is described' use 'These parts are described
[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
No
No the flow is complicated as there the 'Principles' are not in the correct order
Yes
No, as there are no sources
Add more sources
[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
No
No
Check grammar mistakes
[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
No, as one of them cannot be seen and the other one is not clear
No
Put more relevant figures and clear descriptions
[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
Not sure
Yes
-
[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
No
No
-
[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
No
No
Not sure
Add references
