Talk:Product family master plan
(→Answer 7) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | The summary is really clear because it shows with few words the main purpose of the article. After reading the summary is possible to understand quickly all the contents that are explained in the article. | + | ''The summary is really clear because it shows with few words the main purpose of the article. After reading the summary is possible to understand quickly all the contents that are explained in the article. I suggest to show more references and to include pictures as well. |
| − | + | '' | |
| − | I suggest to show more references and to include pictures as well. | + | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 41: | Line 40: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | All the argument are clear and the article is written with a good logical flow, especially because the format has been set following a precise list. The parts are well divided, is possible to understand all the keywords thanks to a perfect use of bold and bullet point are used properly. I haven't found any contradiction, but I suggest to put more pictures in order to have a better comprehension of the all article. | + | ''All the argument are clear and the article is written with a good logical flow, especially because the format has been set following a precise list. The parts are well divided, is possible to understand all the keywords thanks to a perfect use of bold and bullet point are used properly. I haven't found any contradiction, but I suggest to put more pictures in order to have a better comprehension of the all article. |
| + | '' | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | The grammar used in the article is correct and perfectly appropriate, it is possible to see that there are many specific words concerning the topic described. In the entire article there is the presence of some fill words, but reading separately the individual paragraphs, they don't notice an excessive presence of them. I don't think that grammar and style need improvements. | + | ''The grammar used in the article is correct and perfectly appropriate, it is possible to see that there are many specific words concerning the topic described. In the entire article there is the presence of some fill words, but reading separately the individual paragraphs, they don't notice an excessive presence of them. I don't think that grammar and style need improvements. |
| + | '' | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 77: | Line 78: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | The article clearly explains the contents with academic relevance. The information are well articulated and in the most specific parts, all references are integrated correctly. The main purpose of the whole article was summarized in the first part, and then the rest of the article is implemented with practical examples. In my opinion the article does not need further improvements. | + | ''The article clearly explains the contents with academic relevance. The information are well articulated and in the most specific parts, all references are integrated correctly. The main purpose of the whole article was summarized in the first part, and then the rest of the article is implemented with practical examples. In my opinion the article does not need further improvements. |
| + | '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article was written in such a way as to provide all the information necessary for readers. Arguments are explained clearly and the main focus is supported with academic information. It can be a good contribution in cursory web research. I believe that could be useful to add more general information about the article, so that any type of reader can understand the topic.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''All the previous literature are mentioned in the article, and they clearly explain the topic. The references at the end of the article are schematized in a comprehensible way. All information is traceable, but I suggest inserting some other resource, especially for the general explanation of the topic. | ||
| + | '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Dana Rut Gunnarsdóttir''== | ||
| + | ===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 good, but there are some long sentences without breaks which makes it a bit hard to read. | ||
| + | Otherwise the article focus is clear and makes the audience curious to read further. :) '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''All the above questions are fulfilled. The article is true to the abstract and the flow is good throughout the article. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 writing is good and precise. No further improvements needed there.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The figures are well related to the text and helps the reader to gain more understanding of the topic :) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article has made the topic clear and is well explained. | ||
| + | It contains a good combination of theoretical and practical aspects of the topic.'' | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 89: | Line 183: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | The article | + | ''The article is well written and contains a lot of useful information for both practitioner and academic reader.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 197: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | ''The article is properly cited and based on empirical data. No further improvements needed in my opinion :) well done! | |
| + | '' | ||
Latest revision as of 21:11, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Missing. Ensure this is emphasized and eventually highlighting the target audience. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant. However, always ensure this is kept within the realms of project/program/portfolio management. |
| References | Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Dilan Casablanca
[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 really clear because it shows with few words the main purpose of the article. After reading the summary is possible to understand quickly all the contents that are explained in the article. I suggest to show more references and to include pictures as well.
[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
All the argument are clear and the article is written with a good logical flow, especially because the format has been set following a precise list. The parts are well divided, is possible to understand all the keywords thanks to a perfect use of bold and bullet point are used properly. I haven't found any contradiction, but I suggest to put more pictures in order to have a better comprehension of the all article.
[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
The grammar used in the article is correct and perfectly appropriate, it is possible to see that there are many specific words concerning the topic described. In the entire article there is the presence of some fill words, but reading separately the individual paragraphs, they don't notice an excessive presence of them. I don't think that grammar and style need improvements.
[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
Figures and tables are clear and help to explain the topic in a graphic way. Furthermore, I think it was a good idea to use the same style in all the figures. The only thing that I suggest to improve, is to add some more figures in the initial part of the article.
[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
The article clearly explains the contents with academic relevance. The information are well articulated and in the most specific parts, all references are integrated correctly. The main purpose of the whole article was summarized in the first part, and then the rest of the article is implemented with practical examples. In my opinion the article does not need further improvements.
[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
The article was written in such a way as to provide all the information necessary for readers. Arguments are explained clearly and the main focus is supported with academic information. It can be a good contribution in cursory web research. I believe that could be useful to add more general information about the article, so that any type of reader can understand the topic.
[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
All the previous literature are mentioned in the article, and they clearly explain the topic. The references at the end of the article are schematized in a comprehensible way. All information is traceable, but I suggest inserting some other resource, especially for the general explanation of the topic.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Dana Rut Gunnarsdóttir
[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 good, but there are some long sentences without breaks which makes it a bit hard to read. Otherwise the article focus is clear and makes the audience curious to read further. :)
[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
All the above questions are fulfilled. The article is true to the abstract and the flow is good throughout the article.
[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
The writing is good and precise. No further improvements needed there.
[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 well related to the text and helps the reader to gain more understanding of the topic :)
[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
The article has made the topic clear and is well explained. It contains a good combination of theoretical and practical aspects of the topic.
[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
The article is well written and contains a lot of useful information for both practitioner and academic reader.
[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 properly cited and based on empirical data. No further improvements needed in my opinion :) well done!
