Talk:Crisis Management in Construction Projects
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Yulisa Gutierrez''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution ...") |
(→Feedback 4 - Veronika Bankó) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''You could expand in depth a little more on your abstract. Also, the last sentence throws off the flow of your abstract. Maybe try saying something like "Aside from offering a brief background on crisis management, the main goal of this article is to cover the various tools project managers have to prevent crises in relations to cost overrun in construction projects, and the available tools to mitigate cost after crises.'"' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The structure is a little confusing due to the fact that it is not clearly shown what is a subcategory of what. Also, I feel like instead of just listing information, try to explain WHY its important to know that information, and how that info could alter or enhance the situation. Just a small tip'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are many small grammar mistakes such as miss-spelling, erroneously using "there, their, theyre, or there are". In the Theory section you forgot a period. Small things. Nothing too crazy.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No figures put up, but dont worry, I did the same haha. I dont know how to upload the pictures or figures onto the wiki article yet'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I feel like it was just a lot of information but not a lot of "tying together" to represent a full argument or idea. '' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Ive covered these questions above'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Citation is good'' |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==feedback 3 - mercedes hachmann== | ||
| + | |||
| + | the theory part looks somewhat fragmented. It should be ok, if you were planning on expanding the individual sections, otherwise I would recomend changing the layout. Also, the different header sizes look rather random and don't really help the structure as I think you intended - maybe use normal text in bold and italics instead of headers for the under points? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 4 - Veronika Bankó== | ||
| + | (Sorry for not structuring the information, instead I will just write every tought one by one) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * The abstract is good. | ||
| + | * I didn't get the point why this article is just about construction projects. What are the differences between them and other project? | ||
| + | * Try to be more specific. I do agree with the others, that you might wanted to cover too much but at the end you ended up with too much information. This might be why you have so much bullet-points --with out being bullet-points (it is hard to read them in this state)-- and so much headlines. I feel like there are a lot of information listed one by one but with just little specific examination on each elements and also, I can't really see the connection between the different headlines. So maybe if you don't want to narrow down the concept, maybe try to align them together so that the reader can understand the connections as well. | ||
| + | * I know you are going to put some examples and pictures in, just one good place could be at the certain social structures ”which ensure a smoother transition of information than others”. | ||
| + | * And also I liked your car example but since we are talking about construction, | ||
| + | * Probably you are going to fix the references, but just in case: You need to use the wiki reference structure (numbers with [] brackets) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:27, 26 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Yulisa Gutierrez
[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
You could expand in depth a little more on your abstract. Also, the last sentence throws off the flow of your abstract. Maybe try saying something like "Aside from offering a brief background on crisis management, the main goal of this article is to cover the various tools project managers have to prevent crises in relations to cost overrun in construction projects, and the available tools to mitigate cost after crises.'"'
[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
The structure is a little confusing due to the fact that it is not clearly shown what is a subcategory of what. Also, I feel like instead of just listing information, try to explain WHY its important to know that information, and how that info could alter or enhance the situation. Just a small tip
[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
There are many small grammar mistakes such as miss-spelling, erroneously using "there, their, theyre, or there are". In the Theory section you forgot a period. Small things. Nothing too crazy.
[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 put up, but dont worry, I did the same haha. I dont know how to upload the pictures or figures onto the wiki article 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
I feel like it was just a lot of information but not a lot of "tying together" to represent a full argument or idea.
[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
Ive covered these questions above
[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
Citation is good
[edit] feedback 3 - mercedes hachmann
the theory part looks somewhat fragmented. It should be ok, if you were planning on expanding the individual sections, otherwise I would recomend changing the layout. Also, the different header sizes look rather random and don't really help the structure as I think you intended - maybe use normal text in bold and italics instead of headers for the under points?
[edit] Feedback 4 - Veronika Bankó
(Sorry for not structuring the information, instead I will just write every tought one by one)
- The abstract is good.
- I didn't get the point why this article is just about construction projects. What are the differences between them and other project?
- Try to be more specific. I do agree with the others, that you might wanted to cover too much but at the end you ended up with too much information. This might be why you have so much bullet-points --with out being bullet-points (it is hard to read them in this state)-- and so much headlines. I feel like there are a lot of information listed one by one but with just little specific examination on each elements and also, I can't really see the connection between the different headlines. So maybe if you don't want to narrow down the concept, maybe try to align them together so that the reader can understand the connections as well.
- I know you are going to put some examples and pictures in, just one good place could be at the certain social structures ”which ensure a smoother transition of information than others”.
- And also I liked your car example but since we are talking about construction,
- Probably you are going to fix the references, but just in case: You need to use the wiki reference structure (numbers with [] brackets)
