Talk:Critical Path Method in Construction Industry
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Adam.pekala (Talk | contribs) (→Content) |
|||
| (22 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Anna: I don't have a lot to say about your abstract. It is a very good choice of topic and you have managed to focus on a specific method. The overall structure seems good also, so I believe this could be a very interesting and useful article when completed. | Anna: I don't have a lot to say about your abstract. It is a very good choice of topic and you have managed to focus on a specific method. The overall structure seems good also, so I believe this could be a very interesting and useful article when completed. | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | Note from the author - the response will be provided as red text: | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">This is how sample response will look like</pre> | ||
| + | |||
==Feedback from s150821 (reviewer 3)== | ==Feedback from s150821 (reviewer 3)== | ||
*The article is well written, its reading is fluent and really engaging. Its structure follows perfectly what it is requested by the assignment. | *The article is well written, its reading is fluent and really engaging. Its structure follows perfectly what it is requested by the assignment. | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Thank you for the response. I went through the article once again and I've changed small mistakes to make it even more consistent</pre> | ||
*Images are exhaustive , they give the reader a quick understanding of the topic; | *Images are exhaustive , they give the reader a quick understanding of the topic; | ||
| − | *External links to other pages of Wikipedia are a good idea, they make the article understanding easier; | + | <pre style="color: red">Thank you, it's really nice to hear that drawing all of them carefully made sense</pre> |
| + | *External links to other pages of Wikipedia are a good idea, they make the article understanding easier; | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">As you mentioned, they help people to understand the content better. However, I re-linked some of them to connect to DTU MAN Wiki</pre> | ||
*References are punctual and from reliable sources; | *References are punctual and from reliable sources; | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">References are now described and a follow-up material has been provided</pre> | ||
*The only deficiency of this article is in “Use Limitations” section; while situations in which this method can be applied are well treated along the article , use limitations of CPM are not as comprehensive as it is the whole article. | *The only deficiency of this article is in “Use Limitations” section; while situations in which this method can be applied are well treated along the article , use limitations of CPM are not as comprehensive as it is the whole article. | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Advantages and use limitations section has been rewrited and converted to bullet points. Moreover, use limitations has been extended as deeper analysis of materials has been performed</pre> | ||
==(Review 2, S145166)== | ==(Review 2, S145166)== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 21: | ||
===Format=== | ===Format=== | ||
*Very good abstract summarising article. Follows 'methods' article structure well | *Very good abstract summarising article. Follows 'methods' article structure well | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">I really wanted to fit into the category of method description. However, please find additional follow-up material in annotated bibliography leading to a case-study</pre> | ||
*Good use of graphics | *Good use of graphics | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Thank you, it's really nice to hear that drawing all of them carefully made sense</pre> | ||
*some small grammar errors - read through again | *some small grammar errors - read through again | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">I went through the article and repaired some of grammar mistakes. Thank you for the advice.</pre> | ||
*referencing error in 5. method advantages | *referencing error in 5. method advantages | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Reference error repaired</pre> | ||
===Content=== | ===Content=== | ||
*Add an annotated bibliography | *Add an annotated bibliography | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Annotated bibliography with references and follow-up section added</pre> | ||
*Could include further discussion or just suggested reading about CPM computer programs mentioned | *Could include further discussion or just suggested reading about CPM computer programs mentioned | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">I've added a section in general information, point 1.4 where I present some software and link to their pages. I decided not to put it in further readings | ||
| + | because to my mind they hardly fit there. I'd love to cover topic about the software thoroughly, but since this article treats about the method itself, it was hard to describe | ||
| + | the software more than by giving it a quick overview</pre> | ||
*Could be more critical or add more detail to limitations. maybe compare to alternative methods | *Could be more critical or add more detail to limitations. maybe compare to alternative methods | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Advantages and use limitations section has been rewrited and converted to bullet points. Moreover, use limitations has been extended as deeper analysis of materials has been performed. | ||
| + | In some aspects of the limitation (duration estimations) comparison to PERT was addded as well as link to its wiki page</pre> | ||
| + | |||
*I think you should reference to APPPM wiki articles over “real wiki” articles. eg. PERT | *I think you should reference to APPPM wiki articles over “real wiki” articles. eg. PERT | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">I re-linked some of the links to DTU MAN Wiki pages. Great idea!</pre> | ||
==alex161 (reviewer 1)== | ==alex161 (reviewer 1)== | ||
In general I like the topic and I read it nicely, the structure seems good . Something is missing around the article but I think you are on a good way. Good job! | In general I like the topic and I read it nicely, the structure seems good . Something is missing around the article but I think you are on a good way. Good job! | ||
Structure | Structure | ||
| − | *Summary is written in a good and understandable way, I like it . | + | *Summary is written in a good and understandable way, I like it. |
| + | <pre style="color: red">Thank you, I really appreciate it.</pre> | ||
*The figure are appropried with the topics | *The figure are appropried with the topics | ||
| − | *Remember to add the sources to the figures . | + | <pre style="color: red">Thank you. Looks like working on them additional hours was worth it</pre> |
| + | *Remember to add the sources to the figures. | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Since I have prepared all of the figures myself I cannot reference to any source. I will, however, add source where I based my graphics on source figures.</pre> | ||
Contents | Contents | ||
*I think that the short history part is a good way to start , it is very concise and understandable | *I think that the short history part is a good way to start , it is very concise and understandable | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Thank you. To read more about history and read about first feedback from construction industry check out the first reference - it is a really good article.</pre> | ||
*Try to explain bettter the example of CPM graph creation | *Try to explain bettter the example of CPM graph creation | ||
| − | *The flow of the article is linear and logical without any problem to understand the topics . | + | <pre style="color: red">I have added some additional description to points 2.2.1-2.2.4. I hope that now all of the calculations as well as final creation of the graph will be clear.</pre> |
| − | *Remember to add some brief summary to the bibliography | + | *The flow of the article is linear and logical without any problem to understand the topics. |
| − | *Maybe you should improve the limitations and method advantagess, with some sentences explaining a bit more than the bullet points . | + | <pre style="color: red">Thank you very much - I am really glad that the article is easy to read</pre> |
| + | *Remember to add some brief summary to the bibliography | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Annotated bibliography with references and follow-up section added</pre> | ||
| + | *Maybe you should improve the limitations and method advantagess, with some sentences explaining a bit more than the bullet points. | ||
| + | <pre style="color: red">Advantages and use limitations section has been rewrited and converted to bullet points. Moreover, use limitations has been extended as deeper analysis of materials has been performed. | ||
| + | </pre> | ||
Latest revision as of 22:10, 27 September 2015
Anna: I don't have a lot to say about your abstract. It is a very good choice of topic and you have managed to focus on a specific method. The overall structure seems good also, so I believe this could be a very interesting and useful article when completed.
Note from the author - the response will be provided as red text:
This is how sample response will look like
Contents |
[edit] Feedback from s150821 (reviewer 3)
- The article is well written, its reading is fluent and really engaging. Its structure follows perfectly what it is requested by the assignment.
Thank you for the response. I went through the article once again and I've changed small mistakes to make it even more consistent
- Images are exhaustive , they give the reader a quick understanding of the topic;
Thank you, it's really nice to hear that drawing all of them carefully made sense
- External links to other pages of Wikipedia are a good idea, they make the article understanding easier;
As you mentioned, they help people to understand the content better. However, I re-linked some of them to connect to DTU MAN Wiki
- References are punctual and from reliable sources;
References are now described and a follow-up material has been provided
- The only deficiency of this article is in “Use Limitations” section; while situations in which this method can be applied are well treated along the article , use limitations of CPM are not as comprehensive as it is the whole article.
Advantages and use limitations section has been rewrited and converted to bullet points. Moreover, use limitations has been extended as deeper analysis of materials has been performed
[edit] (Review 2, S145166)
[edit] Format
- Very good abstract summarising article. Follows 'methods' article structure well
I really wanted to fit into the category of method description. However, please find additional follow-up material in annotated bibliography leading to a case-study
- Good use of graphics
Thank you, it's really nice to hear that drawing all of them carefully made sense
- some small grammar errors - read through again
I went through the article and repaired some of grammar mistakes. Thank you for the advice.
- referencing error in 5. method advantages
Reference error repaired
[edit] Content
- Add an annotated bibliography
Annotated bibliography with references and follow-up section added
- Could include further discussion or just suggested reading about CPM computer programs mentioned
I've added a section in general information, point 1.4 where I present some software and link to their pages. I decided not to put it in further readings because to my mind they hardly fit there. I'd love to cover topic about the software thoroughly, but since this article treats about the method itself, it was hard to describe the software more than by giving it a quick overview
- Could be more critical or add more detail to limitations. maybe compare to alternative methods
Advantages and use limitations section has been rewrited and converted to bullet points. Moreover, use limitations has been extended as deeper analysis of materials has been performed. In some aspects of the limitation (duration estimations) comparison to PERT was addded as well as link to its wiki page
- I think you should reference to APPPM wiki articles over “real wiki” articles. eg. PERT
I re-linked some of the links to DTU MAN Wiki pages. Great idea!
[edit] alex161 (reviewer 1)
In general I like the topic and I read it nicely, the structure seems good . Something is missing around the article but I think you are on a good way. Good job! Structure
- Summary is written in a good and understandable way, I like it.
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
- The figure are appropried with the topics
Thank you. Looks like working on them additional hours was worth it
- Remember to add the sources to the figures.
Since I have prepared all of the figures myself I cannot reference to any source. I will, however, add source where I based my graphics on source figures.
Contents
- I think that the short history part is a good way to start , it is very concise and understandable
Thank you. To read more about history and read about first feedback from construction industry check out the first reference - it is a really good article.
- Try to explain bettter the example of CPM graph creation
I have added some additional description to points 2.2.1-2.2.4. I hope that now all of the calculations as well as final creation of the graph will be clear.
- The flow of the article is linear and logical without any problem to understand the topics.
Thank you very much - I am really glad that the article is easy to read
- Remember to add some brief summary to the bibliography
Annotated bibliography with references and follow-up section added
- Maybe you should improve the limitations and method advantagess, with some sentences explaining a bit more than the bullet points.
Advantages and use limitations section has been rewrited and converted to bullet points. Moreover, use limitations has been extended as deeper analysis of materials has been performed.
