Talk:Feasibility Analysis
(Created page with "=Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" '''Description of the tool/theory/conce...") |
(→Abstract Feedback) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | =Abstract Feedback== | + | ==Abstract Feedback== |
'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent | '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" | '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" | ||
| − | '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Okay, but | + | '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Okay, but add references to increase credibility. The abstract can be expanded |
'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved: | '''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved: | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<li> Consider linking this to creating a business case? | <li> Consider linking this to creating a business case? | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Aksel Watson''== | ||
| + | ===Question 1 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | '' The summary is very good, and get to the point quickly. It gives a good overview of what you are about to read and make the reader interested. There are a bit of grammatical and spelling mistakes that should be corrected. '' | ||
| + | ===Question 2 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | '' The argument is good, and indicates the importance of feasibility studies within any industry. The part of the article that is written has a good flow, and shows step-by-step how to conduct a feasibility analysis to start with.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 3 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | '' Very few grammatical errors. Read it through once more, and the last mistakes will be caught.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 4 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:'' | ||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | '' The are no tables and figures.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 5 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | '' It is very academic relevant, since a feasibility study is relevant in many projects. Maybe you could write a an introduction for the process to show which type of projects need a feasibility and which does not.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 6 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | '' At the moment the article is very descriptive – but when the points are filled in, I think the article will be a good and contribute to what you find on the internet.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 7 • TEXT=== | ||
| + | ===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 19:00, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Okay, but add references to increase credibility. The abstract can be expanded
Purpose explanation Good, but can be improved:
- Consider explaining the structure and content of the article to align reader expectations
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Good, but consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- Try linking the topic to a project life cycle (check PMBOK)
- Consider linking this to creating a business case?
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Aksel Watson
[edit] Question 1 • TEXT
Quality of the summary:
[edit] Answer 1
The summary is very good, and get to the point quickly. It gives a good overview of what you are about to read and make the reader interested. There are a bit of grammatical and spelling mistakes that should be corrected.
[edit] Question 2 • TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
[edit] Answer 2
The argument is good, and indicates the importance of feasibility studies within any industry. The part of the article that is written has a good flow, and shows step-by-step how to conduct a feasibility analysis to start with.
[edit] Question 3 • TEXT
Grammar and style:
[edit] Answer 3
Very few grammatical errors. Read it through once more, and the last mistakes will be caught.
[edit] Question 4 • TEXT
'Figures and tables:
[edit] Answer 4
The are no tables and figures.
[edit] Question 5 • TEXT
Interest and relevance:
[edit] Answer 5
It is very academic relevant, since a feasibility study is relevant in many projects. Maybe you could write a an introduction for the process to show which type of projects need a feasibility and which does not.
[edit] Question 6 • TEXT
Depth of treatment:
[edit] Answer 6
At the moment the article is very descriptive – but when the points are filled in, I think the article will be a good and contribute to what you find on the internet.
[edit] Question 7 • TEXT
[edit] Answer 7
There is only one source, however this source is both relevant and denoted correctly in the text and in the end
