Talk:Different sides of Project Management Scheduling
(→Abstract Feedback) |
(→Abstract Feedback) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search | <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Aksel WAtson''== | ||
| + | ===Question 1 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | '' The summary has a nice length – it gets to the key point quickly. However, there are many grammar and spelling mistakes that should be corrected. I believe it will be a valuable contribution for anybody wanting to learn more about project management.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 2 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | ''Only the abstract has been writing, therefore it is not possible to comment on the flow of the article. I suggest, that a table of content is created to ensure that each subject is relevant within project scheduling'' | ||
| + | ===Question 3 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | '' The style seems fine, however I can only see the abstract. As mentioned in Q1, there are a lot of grammatical error, that should be corrected. I suggest, making sentences shorter and more precise, and only write what is necessary instead of listing up, so many items.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 4 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:'' | ||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | '' There are no figure or table in the article.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 5 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Interest and relevance:'' | ||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | '' The article is very relevant, since project scheduling is used in any company and any industry. I feel that this is portrayed nicely in the abstract, however its hard to say before more text has been writing.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 6 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | '' Not yet.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 7 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | ''There is only one source, however this source is both relevant and denoted correctly in the text and in the end'' | ||
Latest revision as of 19:02, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Minor errors e.g. writing "need" when "needed" is required. Do not use first person narrative e.g. "we"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Okay, but go back to basics. Define what scheduling is and make references to appropriate standards. The abstract needs expansion
Purpose explanation Good, but can be improved:
- Consider explaining the structure and content of the article to align reader expectations
- What will the reader get out of reading this?
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- Try linking to a knowledge area e.g. "Project Time Management"
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Aksel WAtson
[edit] Question 1 • TEXT
Quality of the summary:
[edit] Answer 1
The summary has a nice length – it gets to the key point quickly. However, there are many grammar and spelling mistakes that should be corrected. I believe it will be a valuable contribution for anybody wanting to learn more about project management.
[edit] Question 2 • TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
[edit] Answer 2
Only the abstract has been writing, therefore it is not possible to comment on the flow of the article. I suggest, that a table of content is created to ensure that each subject is relevant within project scheduling
[edit] Question 3 • TEXT
Grammar and style:
[edit] Answer 3
The style seems fine, however I can only see the abstract. As mentioned in Q1, there are a lot of grammatical error, that should be corrected. I suggest, making sentences shorter and more precise, and only write what is necessary instead of listing up, so many items.
[edit] Question 4 • TEXT
'Figures and tables:
[edit] Answer 4
There are no figure or table in the article.
[edit] Question 5 • TEXT
'Interest and relevance:
[edit] Answer 5
The article is very relevant, since project scheduling is used in any company and any industry. I feel that this is portrayed nicely in the abstract, however its hard to say before more text has been writing.
[edit] Question 6 • TEXT
Depth of treatment:
[edit] Answer 6
Not yet.
[edit] Question 7 • TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
[edit] Answer 7
There is only one source, however this source is both relevant and denoted correctly in the text and in the end
