Talk:Project Management: Cost vs. Price
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
==Feedback 2| Reviewer name: ''Rasmine Søgren''== | ==Feedback 2| Reviewer name: ''Rasmine Søgren''== | ||
| − | ==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? | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 1 | + | Answer 1:The summery are good, and the language is good. |
| − | The summery are good, and the language is good. | + | |
| − | ==Question 2== | + | ===Question 2=== |
Structure and logic of the article: | Structure and logic of the article: | ||
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| Line 128: | Line 127: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 2 | + | Answer 2: The article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand. |
| − | The article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand. | + | |
| − | ==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? | ||
| Line 137: | Line 135: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 3 | + | Answer 3: As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors. |
| − | As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors. | + | |
| − | ==Question 4== | + | ===Question 4=== |
Figures and tables: | Figures and tables: | ||
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| Line 146: | Line 143: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 4 | + | Answer 4: Figures are placed well on the right side. |
| − | Figures are placed well on the right side. | + | |
| − | ==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? | ||
| Line 155: | Line 151: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 5 | + | Answer 5: I think the topic of choice is good and relevant. |
| − | I think the topic of choice is good and relevant. | + | |
| − | ==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? | ||
| Line 164: | Line 159: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 6 | + | Answer 6: I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this. |
| − | I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this. | + | |
| − | ==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? | ||
| Line 174: | Line 168: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Answer 7 | + | Answer 7: I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this. |
| − | I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this. | + | |
Latest revision as of 19:19, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good but could also be cost and price in project management |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | The abstract is a bit short so if you want to be a bit more specific you have space. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rajat Kumar
[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 content in the summary is clearly described and illustrates the idea in whole article.
[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
Nicely structured in the proper lexical sense and this makes very easy to understand and interesting to read.
[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 waste words have been used and language used precisely describes the topic.
[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
Excellent correlation between the content and figures. Figures in the article make it easy to understand what the authors want to say.
[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 has high academic relevance as it makes you understand the cost parameters in terms of pro
[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
"Setting a price for a project is usually done by the company’s marketing department" in this line it is confusing as I think you should talk about deliverables/product, not about the project. Everything is relevant in the article except in some points it makes confusion in Project / Product
[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
the article is very well summarized with proper citations
[edit] Feedback 2| Reviewer name: Rasmine Søgren
[edit] Question 1
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 summery are good, and the language is good.
[edit] Question 2
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 article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand.
[edit] Question 3
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: As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors.
[edit] Question 4
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: Figures are placed well on the right side.
[edit] Question 5
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: I think the topic of choice is good and relevant.
[edit] Question 6
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 the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.
[edit] Question 7
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: I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.
