Talk:Lean construction
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→REVIEW by Liclawio: new section) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== REVIEW by Liclawio == | == REVIEW by Liclawio == | ||
| − | + | * In general, a very nice setup of wikipage. Seems like proper use of the wiki platform. | |
| + | * Very good overview article of the theory on the field, and following the setup more or less to the letter | ||
| + | * Really good length of article, especially considering last parts still missing at current time. | ||
| + | ** ''Updated with last part.'' | ||
| + | * Nice structure overview. Concise sentences and paragraphs making it easy to read though the article. | ||
| + | * In general good language. However, you should consider a quick spell check in Word or other software also including grammar check (fx. customer). Also spell check figures and tables | ||
| + | ** Consider whether the article should be written in UK or US English and/or look through spelling. Both words with ou and only o in text (fx. labour/behaviors). Also remember use of “z” vs “s” when considering UK vs US | ||
| + | *** ''Changed the words i found to US. Also used Word to correct some grammar and spelling.'' | ||
| + | ** Consider single/plural forms (is/are, with/without “s” on endings). | ||
| + | *** ''Thank you, as far as I know it's changed.'' | ||
| + | * Nice figures. Could perhaps be included, explained of referenced a bit more through the text. Also a bit difficult to see, whether own figures/tables or taken from elsewhere, and in that case whether they are copyright protected. | ||
| + | ** ''I referred the the figures in the text, and added in what material they are based on.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Review - B wiki == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Formal aspects: | ||
| + | *Some grammatical errors, for example: | ||
| + | **Verbs in singular and plural: “These two interpretations ''are''…”, “they together ''strive''…”, “there ''are'' several…” | ||
| + | *** ''Fixed these examples'' | ||
| + | **Word order: “''productivity spent hours''” | ||
| + | *** ''Tried to change the word order in this sentence'' | ||
| + | **Past participles for irregular verbs: “''spent''”, “''shown''” | ||
| + | *** ''These examples are changed' | ||
| + | **Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “does not ''recognize''” | ||
| + | *** Think it's right now | ||
| + | *Some repetition can be avoided by using pronouns | ||
| + | ** ''I read through the text and didn't find what you mean.'' | ||
| + | *In general, not too long sentences that help to follow what you are saying | ||
| + | *You used very nice illustrations to explain the concept. Also useful summary tables | ||
| + | *References are appropriately used | ||
| + | *At the end of some sections you put two bullet points without introducing them before. Maybe you still have to work on them | ||
| + | ** ''A mistake to still have them in the text, and the last part is added.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Concept aspects: | ||
| + | *The abstract, in general, is good. You get into the topic quite fast and this is nice for understanding what is all about. | ||
| + | *The topic is interesting and is related to the subject | ||
| + | *Really nice structure of the article | ||
| + | *The length is appropriate for this kind of topic (aprox. 3000 words) | ||
| + | *Many references are good to see that the sources are reliable | ||
| + | *The text doesn’t seem to be copied and pasted. When necessary, you used inverted commas (that’s ok) | ||
Latest revision as of 16:25, 28 November 2014
[edit] REVIEW by Liclawio
- In general, a very nice setup of wikipage. Seems like proper use of the wiki platform.
- Very good overview article of the theory on the field, and following the setup more or less to the letter
- Really good length of article, especially considering last parts still missing at current time.
- Updated with last part.
- Nice structure overview. Concise sentences and paragraphs making it easy to read though the article.
- In general good language. However, you should consider a quick spell check in Word or other software also including grammar check (fx. customer). Also spell check figures and tables
- Consider whether the article should be written in UK or US English and/or look through spelling. Both words with ou and only o in text (fx. labour/behaviors). Also remember use of “z” vs “s” when considering UK vs US
- Changed the words i found to US. Also used Word to correct some grammar and spelling.
- Consider single/plural forms (is/are, with/without “s” on endings).
- Thank you, as far as I know it's changed.
- Consider whether the article should be written in UK or US English and/or look through spelling. Both words with ou and only o in text (fx. labour/behaviors). Also remember use of “z” vs “s” when considering UK vs US
- Nice figures. Could perhaps be included, explained of referenced a bit more through the text. Also a bit difficult to see, whether own figures/tables or taken from elsewhere, and in that case whether they are copyright protected.
- I referred the the figures in the text, and added in what material they are based on.
[edit] Review - B wiki
Formal aspects:
- Some grammatical errors, for example:
- Verbs in singular and plural: “These two interpretations are…”, “they together strive…”, “there are several…”
- Fixed these examples
- Word order: “productivity spent hours”
- Tried to change the word order in this sentence
- Past participles for irregular verbs: “spent”, “shown”
- These examples are changed'
- Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “does not recognize”
- Think it's right now
- Verbs in singular and plural: “These two interpretations are…”, “they together strive…”, “there are several…”
- Some repetition can be avoided by using pronouns
- I read through the text and didn't find what you mean.
- In general, not too long sentences that help to follow what you are saying
- You used very nice illustrations to explain the concept. Also useful summary tables
- References are appropriately used
- At the end of some sections you put two bullet points without introducing them before. Maybe you still have to work on them
- A mistake to still have them in the text, and the last part is added.
Concept aspects:
- The abstract, in general, is good. You get into the topic quite fast and this is nice for understanding what is all about.
- The topic is interesting and is related to the subject
- Really nice structure of the article
- The length is appropriate for this kind of topic (aprox. 3000 words)
- Many references are good to see that the sources are reliable
- The text doesn’t seem to be copied and pasted. When necessary, you used inverted commas (that’s ok)
