Talk:Output,Outcome and Benefit
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Y) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Until now, the context of the article is irrelevant to subject of the article, I suggest to start with an introduction which can contain definition of output, outcome and benefit. '' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I did not see any mistakes in grammar and style.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No figure and table yet! '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''As I mentioned before, the author has focused more on presenting the reference which is not necessary. '' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Not yet but the topic has potential to be an academic article. '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No reference and bibliography yet!'' |
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Bashir Isse''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''An introduction/abstract to the subject is missing, I would consider making a precise introduction of the topic. '' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Currently it is a bit abstract '' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Some small grammar errors. Check for commas '' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No figures currently '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It can be relevant if it is structured well'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It is currently not well defined but it has the potential to be'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no references'' |
Latest revision as of 18:20, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Behzad Sanie
[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
No! The summary focuses more on presenting PRINCE2 book and its chapters. I suggest the author to first read the book "How to DO Projects, A Nordic Flavour to Managing Projects by Joana Geraldi, Christian Thuesen, Josef Oehmen and Verena Stingl" fourth chapter and find the difference between output, outcome and benefit in a project management
[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
Until now, the context of the article is irrelevant to subject of the article, I suggest to start with an introduction which can contain definition of output, outcome and benefit.
[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
I did not see any mistakes in grammar and style.
[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 figure and table yet!
[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 mentioned before, the author has focused more on presenting the reference which is not necessary.
[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
Not yet but the topic has potential to be an academic article.
[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 reference and bibliography yet!
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Bashir Isse
[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
An introduction/abstract to the subject is missing, I would consider making a precise introduction of the topic.
[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
Currently it is a bit abstract
[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
Some small grammar errors. Check for commas
[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 figures currently
[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
It can be relevant if it is structured well
[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 is currently not well defined but it has the potential to be
[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
There are no references
