Talk:Actions element
Tom Ruetgers (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Tom Ruetgers''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of t...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Comment: I wrote the feedback on Saturday morning at 8:00, the article has changed in the meantime'' | Comment: I wrote the feedback on Saturday morning at 8:00, the article has changed in the meantime'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Thomas Boel''== | ||
| + | ===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 abstract adequately describes the content of the article and the importance of the theme. But towards the end of the abstract, it says, that “and how actions element influence management of project to help project manager improve from detailed action management by making a good action plan”. I don't see this part answered in the article - it, as you say, mainly describes action element in different phases, but it does not describe, how and why it helps the PM. so My suggestion for improvement would be to go more deeply into this aspect or erase it from the abstract. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 don't think there is an argument in this article - no harm meant. But It seems to me that the article describes the role of action elements and gives an overview of where they apply in projects different phases. | ||
| + | There is a logical flow, as the article says it sets out to describe the action elements in different phases of a project, and then it does so. It ends rather sudden - maybe I would fill in a bit more “how and why” in between the sections and also in the very end. Perhaps we will see some reflections in the Limitations section when it is written. Yes, the parts build upon one another, and there are no contradictions in my view. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Generally, the language is well mastered except for a few grammar mistakes sneaking into the article here and there - may be a total of 5 or fewer grammar mistakes I caught. It didn't feel as like there were unnecessary fill words. If you want to, you could use the chrome addon called Grammarly. It will underline and help you correct the few mistakes if you write the article in chrome browser (in the wiki, docs and elsewhere as long as it is in chrome). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 is only 1 figure in the start, and it does not really relate that much to the topic of the article. I mean, it does help introduce the role of action elements but is not used hence in the article. I guess you maybe have some more figures and table to add later? Or you could make the bullet points into tables. I recommend doing something about the bullet points, since there are a lot of them and the way they are now is, in my view, a bit messy. Either just make it into regular bullet points without the dashed frame, or perhaps into a table or similar. Or leave them as they are. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | A few attempts to set the theme of action elements are made, but to me, it seems that there within the article also are some considerations from the author, that states that topic, action elements, are relevant but far from the whole store. What I mean is, if you add a bit more specific context and / or examples to illustrate exactly how, why and where to use action elements and how they contributed to the specific example, it would greatly add more relevance and understanding of the topic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Please don't take this personal, but to be honest, as it is now, I did not find the article that interesting, because to me it is a description of a tool usable in project management, but there is hardly any context and examples. That leaves it as just a description, that I cannot see how and when I would apply. I mean, I can see that it is relevant to include action elements or a similar tool when considering management of projects in all phases, but in this specific article I do not think it is clear how this tool differentiates from similar tools included in other project management toolboxes or gives motivation for why to apply this tool over what we already use. | ||
| + | To help improve this I would fill in some more motivation, specific examples and so on to help better understand why and how to use this tool. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | There are 4 unique references, 2 of them are used multiple times, but I guess they only count as 1 pr unique reference. These are all mentioned in references, and the section about Annotated bibliography is left blank for now. The article seems to be based on these sources, so it is not just based on opinion. But I would suggest writing the 1-2 lines about each of the most important sources and state their importance and usage in the section for annotated bibliography. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:37, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Tom Ruetgers
[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
Hi Tianhao, first of all: Please do not take my feedback personal, I will try to look on your article from a different point of view and try to find something what you might improve. But as you know, I am in the exact same position as you are right now, so I do not know what is "right or wrong". Thus, consider this feedback more as a recommendation than a valuation. cheerio, Tom
Let's go: In the abstract I do not catch 100% what an actions element is and what I can learn from this article. Is an action element just ANY task, activity in a project management environment or certain ones? Maybe you could express (in simple words) what is going to expect me in your article. For example: Overview of the most common/important (?) actions element, in each step of a project and HOW to deal with them. Because you name the reasons for failures in projects and the solution is to manage these actions from scratch. Ok - but probably these project manager, who failed to meet all objectives of their project were aware of that fact. Maybe you should think more practical orientated: Imagine you are a project manager and you are working on your first project in a company and you struggle to manage action elements in your real life project. So you do what ever person does when he or she struggles: you google and find this article. And then you want to know, which action element can I use in which phase of a project (and which not, and why?) and how do I manage them right, that I will not end up as all the other project manager, who screwed their project over
[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
Yes, the structure of the article is clear, but I am missing a little bit a "red line" through the content. For example: why did you structure a project into these steps? I guess, because the it's the PMI standard, right?:-) So maybe you can link this a bit more to project management theory - I do not want to call it "name dropping" but follow and name the approach which you choose (prince2 or PMI), I think the TAs or Professor like that. It's obvious that you have not finished yet, but if you analyze the limits, you could also sum up the benefits and then argue, why actions elements are highly important for PM - so you could link back to your statement in the 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
Well, I am not a native speaker, so I might be not the best person to detect spelling errors, but grammar and spelling seems fine for me. In the beginning of your wiki article you tend to use unnecessary complicate expression to explain something simple. Do not take it to casual but I would prefer to read through it with a good flow and simple grammer and words, since this is a wiki article and not a research paper.
[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
At the moment your wiki article does not contain of any tables or picture. I would like to see a flow from start to end of the project, which action element I should use in each stage and maybe also which PMI tool can I use for applying the action elemetns - could be another good part to proof that you are familiar with the PMI standards and tools
[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 explains what action elements are and where they get used in a project management environment. You could focus a little bit more on the practical approach, and refer to PMI / Prince2 standards
[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
Right now the scope of the article is rather wide and scratches on the surface of several topics. I do not know if you have planned to deep dive a little bit more into each chapter? And you could improve the transitions between the different chapters.
[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
You haven't add an annotated bibliography yet. Check the popular wiki articles, how to properly add annotated bilbiography.
Comment: I wrote the feedback on Saturday morning at 8:00, the article has changed in the meantime
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Thomas Boel
[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 abstract adequately describes the content of the article and the importance of the theme. But towards the end of the abstract, it says, that “and how actions element influence management of project to help project manager improve from detailed action management by making a good action plan”. I don't see this part answered in the article - it, as you say, mainly describes action element in different phases, but it does not describe, how and why it helps the PM. so My suggestion for improvement would be to go more deeply into this aspect or erase it from the abstract.
[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
I don't think there is an argument in this article - no harm meant. But It seems to me that the article describes the role of action elements and gives an overview of where they apply in projects different phases. There is a logical flow, as the article says it sets out to describe the action elements in different phases of a project, and then it does so. It ends rather sudden - maybe I would fill in a bit more “how and why” in between the sections and also in the very end. Perhaps we will see some reflections in the Limitations section when it is written. Yes, the parts build upon one another, and there are no contradictions in my view.
[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
Generally, the language is well mastered except for a few grammar mistakes sneaking into the article here and there - may be a total of 5 or fewer grammar mistakes I caught. It didn't feel as like there were unnecessary fill words. If you want to, you could use the chrome addon called Grammarly. It will underline and help you correct the few mistakes if you write the article in chrome browser (in the wiki, docs and elsewhere as long as it is in chrome).
[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
there is only 1 figure in the start, and it does not really relate that much to the topic of the article. I mean, it does help introduce the role of action elements but is not used hence in the article. I guess you maybe have some more figures and table to add later? Or you could make the bullet points into tables. I recommend doing something about the bullet points, since there are a lot of them and the way they are now is, in my view, a bit messy. Either just make it into regular bullet points without the dashed frame, or perhaps into a table or similar. Or leave them as they are.
[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
A few attempts to set the theme of action elements are made, but to me, it seems that there within the article also are some considerations from the author, that states that topic, action elements, are relevant but far from the whole store. What I mean is, if you add a bit more specific context and / or examples to illustrate exactly how, why and where to use action elements and how they contributed to the specific example, it would greatly add more relevance and understanding 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
Please don't take this personal, but to be honest, as it is now, I did not find the article that interesting, because to me it is a description of a tool usable in project management, but there is hardly any context and examples. That leaves it as just a description, that I cannot see how and when I would apply. I mean, I can see that it is relevant to include action elements or a similar tool when considering management of projects in all phases, but in this specific article I do not think it is clear how this tool differentiates from similar tools included in other project management toolboxes or gives motivation for why to apply this tool over what we already use. To help improve this I would fill in some more motivation, specific examples and so on to help better understand why and how to use this tool.
[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 4 unique references, 2 of them are used multiple times, but I guess they only count as 1 pr unique reference. These are all mentioned in references, and the section about Annotated bibliography is left blank for now. The article seems to be based on these sources, so it is not just based on opinion. But I would suggest writing the 1-2 lines about each of the most important sources and state their importance and usage in the section for annotated bibliography.
