|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Kristine:
| |
| − | Interesting subject, as the finance can be a major showstopper for projects.
| |
| − | I am not exactly certain if you are going to describe a specific tool in your article?
| |
| − | Have you considered how you will relate this subject to project management? (You don't need to answer me on these questions, just make certain you consider it yourself)
| |
| − | Furthermore I can recommend to look at the main page when figuring out how to structure your article.
| |
| | | | |
| − | == Feedback from 113129 ==
| |
| − | * The beginning sections consists of a lot of short sentences – they are fine, but maybe you can combine one or two of them? It’s just a suggestion ☺
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * The financial management structure-figure is good, but not cropped very well. Maybe you should crop the “empty” areas away from the picture, so the figure becomes clearer? ☺ Maybe also make the picture a bit bigger? It’s a good figure! ;)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Maybe add an explanation/introduction to the table? It brings forward some interesting points, which could be explained in depth. ☺
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * The language in this article is very impressive. It’s easy to read and easy to understand, yet you keep the level high and avoid “dumbing it down”. There are a few “mistakes” here and there, but they are so minor that it hardly matters.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Remember to start with capital letters in BOOT/BOT and BOO.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * The key words (although good to have) could maybe be moved to the beginning of the article? It seems a bit strange to almost be in the middle of the article, and suddenly key words appear ☺ Just a suggestion!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * In the “When is PF appropriate?”-section, you start a sentence with “have little uncertainty”. The following text seems to be lacking some punctuation!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Just going to remind you of the [link wiki] tag in the implement-section, in the Controlling the risks-section and in the benefits-section! ;)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Once in a while, sentences are either cut off or starts out of the blue. An example: “hen the ratio of debt to equity” in the “Planning Project Finance”-section. The following sentence ends without a punctuation and the sentence overall seems confusing as well.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * First few lines in “Arranging the financial package”-section are a bit strange. Maybe they should’ve been bullet points?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * The benefits-section is really good; I suggest maybe making a bullet list with keywords and explanations to the different benefits. Like a summery from before, but also more “straight forward”, making it easier to see just how many benefits there are. Just a suggestion! ☺
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Remember to fix the ref-link in the limitations-section!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Overall I think this was a really well-written and interesting article. I felt like I really learned something new. Other than a couple of strange sentences here and there, I really can’t put my finger on anything specific. Great job! ☺
| |
| − |
| |
| − | // This concludes the feedback from 113129
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | ==Feedback from s150821 (reviewer 1)==
| |
| − | *The topic of the article is in line with Project Management themes;
| |
| − | *The article structure well follows the “method” structure requested by the assignment and provide a clear explanation of how article develops.
| |
| − | *Section where are explained various format of PFI is a bit hard to understand also because of argument complexity. Maybe it would be better to explain more in detail what are the differences between various format of PFI.
| |
| − | *The table at the beginning of the article is a really good idea but maybe with an introduction could be better;
| |
| − | *References are well done, enough in quantity and quality ( they all refer to reliable sources);
| |
| − | *Basically article is well written except some mistake about capital letters ; to make clearer the understanding of the article it would be better to write in bold some important concepts.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | // This concludes the feedback from 150821
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Feedback from Dimak (reviewer 3)==
| |
