Talk:Critical reflection on Project Portfolio Management software
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Peer review by Qwerty) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Val review == | == Val review == | ||
| − | + | I would like to start saying that I learnt something reading your article, which is a good point. | |
| − | + | The structure is logical and you manage to turn the complexity of your topic into an easy reading article. | |
| − | + | I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following: | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===Formal aspects=== | ===Formal aspects=== | ||
| − | * | + | *You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners] You can also have a look to other articles who use it |
*figure 1 is missing | *figure 1 is missing | ||
| − | *hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2 | + | *It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2. You can add a caption using Wiki formatting. |
| − | *"Executives" or "executives? | + | *"Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article |
===Grammar and Spelling=== | ===Grammar and Spelling=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Few errors here. To find them, use the research tool. | ||
| + | |||
*deferral instead of deferal | *deferral instead of deferal | ||
| − | *" As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."? | + | *"As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."? |
*"The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance." | *"The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Content aspects=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Your article is mostly didactic but sometimes you take strong positions like in this sentence: "Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would argue that a tool that distorts the result is worse." Maybe you should stay pedagogic. | ||
| + | *"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what? | ||
| + | *Your article misses maybe a conclusion? | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Thank you very much for your review, i have implemented most of what you have suggested and spend some time on the formatting''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | =Peer review by Qwerty= | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thank you for your article. It was interesting to read and see a critical reflection on PPM Software and on the same hand to get more comprehensive understanding regarding the PPM Software processes. | ||
| + | There are few thoughts and insights about it that I would like to share with you. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Formal aspects=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Since it is a WIKI article, I am not sure if there should be a paragraph called "Abstract". Maybe it would be more appropriate way to put it in ahead of the content box? | ||
| + | *Sometimes composition of sentences makes it hard to understand, and in some cases it looks like missing punctuation what makes difficult to follow the idea. | ||
| + | *At one place you use expression "is they", should it be "are"? | ||
| + | *Regarding the figures, what do they reflect upon? Do they really make sense in this context? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Content aspects=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *I don't think you should use expression: "this article will focus/will reflect..." Looks like this WIKI is about an article. | ||
| + | *I am not sure did I get the idea of question formulation? Is that the main focus of this article? | ||
| + | "This article will reflect on the difficult question, if all portfolio management decisions should or can be taken solely by PPM software or if important management aspects are forgotten in the process." | ||
| + | *In the abstract you state "With the movement against project based organizations.." and the in the next paragraph you state "In the recent years more and more companies is moving towards project based organizational structures" and then saying the same key concept of important things. Looks like these two sentences conflict. | ||
| + | *Data from 1990-1999, is it still relevant and comparable in nowadays? | ||
| + | *Maybe there should be the an explanation of ERP abbreviation? | ||
| + | *I would also agree with peer colleague, that something misses in the end, some kind of summing up the whole perspective of the article. Conclusion or discussion part. | ||
| + | |||
| + | All in all, it was a pleasure to read through and these points are just my opinion, no offence. | ||
| + | Good job and keep going. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Qwerty. Thank you for the review, i think that it have been useful i have implemented most of your suggested changes into the article''' | ||
Latest revision as of 16:06, 2 December 2014
Contents |
[edit] Val review
I would like to start saying that I learnt something reading your article, which is a good point. The structure is logical and you manage to turn the complexity of your topic into an easy reading article. I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following:
[edit] Formal aspects
- You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [1] You can also have a look to other articles who use it
- figure 1 is missing
- It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2. You can add a caption using Wiki formatting.
- "Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article
[edit] Grammar and Spelling
Few errors here. To find them, use the research tool.
- deferral instead of deferal
- "As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."?
- "The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance."
[edit] Content aspects
- Your article is mostly didactic but sometimes you take strong positions like in this sentence: "Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would argue that a tool that distorts the result is worse." Maybe you should stay pedagogic.
- "From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?
- Your article misses maybe a conclusion?
Thank you very much for your review, i have implemented most of what you have suggested and spend some time on the formatting
[edit] Peer review by Qwerty
Thank you for your article. It was interesting to read and see a critical reflection on PPM Software and on the same hand to get more comprehensive understanding regarding the PPM Software processes. There are few thoughts and insights about it that I would like to share with you.
[edit] Formal aspects
- Since it is a WIKI article, I am not sure if there should be a paragraph called "Abstract". Maybe it would be more appropriate way to put it in ahead of the content box?
- Sometimes composition of sentences makes it hard to understand, and in some cases it looks like missing punctuation what makes difficult to follow the idea.
- At one place you use expression "is they", should it be "are"?
- Regarding the figures, what do they reflect upon? Do they really make sense in this context?
[edit] Content aspects
- I don't think you should use expression: "this article will focus/will reflect..." Looks like this WIKI is about an article.
- I am not sure did I get the idea of question formulation? Is that the main focus of this article?
"This article will reflect on the difficult question, if all portfolio management decisions should or can be taken solely by PPM software or if important management aspects are forgotten in the process."
- In the abstract you state "With the movement against project based organizations.." and the in the next paragraph you state "In the recent years more and more companies is moving towards project based organizational structures" and then saying the same key concept of important things. Looks like these two sentences conflict.
- Data from 1990-1999, is it still relevant and comparable in nowadays?
- Maybe there should be the an explanation of ERP abbreviation?
- I would also agree with peer colleague, that something misses in the end, some kind of summing up the whole perspective of the article. Conclusion or discussion part.
All in all, it was a pleasure to read through and these points are just my opinion, no offence. Good job and keep going.
Qwerty. Thank you for the review, i think that it have been useful i have implemented most of your suggested changes into the article
