Talk:Programming a project with the CPM
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Sofie Melchior Karlson) |
(→Response to feedback) |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| + | ===Response to feedback=== | ||
| + | Thank you for your feedback. I have changed the abstract to be more specific as well as I have included in the article how this technique has changed nowadays and how it's evolving, refering to the DPM. Also I have included more academic sources, as you mentioned. | ||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sofie Melchior Karlson''== | ||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | ''Good summary. It is very clear what you are going to tell about and what the CPM actually'' | ||
| + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| + | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | ''Nice explanation of the CPM. Good flow but I find the sections application a bit long. The article has a nice flow. | ||
| + | Very nice with links to other wiki pages. But is these the once from this course? if not I think they should be. I would try to split the section application up ino subsection even if it is all coherent. '' | ||
| + | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | ''No gramma or spelling mistakes. Good language.'' | ||
| + | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| − | == | + | What would you suggest to improve? |
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | ''I think the pictures are place a bit messy. The pictures are not placed next to the text which tells about the picture. I would do that, because it can be a bit confusing when you read that you have to look for the picture. But good choise of picture, they are easy to understand.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | ''It has both practical and academic relevance. Because it tells about how to use the CPM and the thought about it. Very nice with the section " The evolution from CP to DPM". I would like it more clear why CPM is relevant. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | ''There is a lot about CPM on the internet, but this give a more detailed explenation on hav to program a project with CPM, which I think is a contribution. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | ''Yes there is prperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography, but shouldn't there be added more in it?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to feedback 1== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thank you for your nice feedback. I have divided the "Application" section into sub-sections and I have placed the pictures near to the text they refer. Thank you again for your contribution. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Nikoleta Kolitsopoulou''== | ||
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 43: | Line 121: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The abstract gives a nice overview to what is following in the text. It is easy to understand the concept of the method, but the summary shows that is an academic one. I did not mention grammatically and lexical errors.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 59: | Line 137: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The structure of the article is coherent and there is a reasonable flow. It is easy for the reader to go through the text, although I would suggest to change a little bit the subsection "Application" to a section called "Application" and to create subsections for "Designing the network", etc. '' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 71: | Line 149: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''As I mentioned before I did not notice spelling, grammatical or lexical errors.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 83: | Line 161: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I like the pictures that are illustrated in the article, but maybe it will be better if they are placed next to the relevant part of the article.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 95: | Line 173: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is practical and has an academic relevance. It is really useful for the reader that plenty of information about this method are summarized in an article. I really like the section about "The Evolution from CPM to DPM".'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 107: | Line 185: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''On the web are a lot of sites or blogs that are referred on this method (CPM), but I think that this article is quite comprehensive and presents an nice overview of this topic.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 121: | Line 199: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article cite summarizes in a nice way the key references and the annotated bibliography is ok, but I would recommended to add more on it.'' |
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to feedback 2== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thank you for your nice feedback and comments. As I can see you state almost the same comments as the other reviewer, and this is logical. I have divided the "Application" section into sub-sections and I have placed the pictures at the correct point. Additionally, I have included more academic references. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:41, 22 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; only one relevant reference.
The Abstract is too generic, there is a lot of literature about this old topic, try to find how the technique is applied in current days, as it is mentioned in your second reference.
Is the technique remains the same?, In which direction the technique is evolving?
When developing your article find more relevant sources, use google for a first approach, your first reference is not good enough, I recommend you to use dtu-library database sources.
[edit] Response to feedback
Thank you for your feedback. I have changed the abstract to be more specific as well as I have included in the article how this technique has changed nowadays and how it's evolving, refering to the DPM. Also I have included more academic sources, as you mentioned.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sofie Melchior Karlson
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
Good summary. It is very clear what you are going to tell about and what the CPM actually
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
Nice explanation of the CPM. Good flow but I find the sections application a bit long. The article has a nice flow. Very nice with links to other wiki pages. But is these the once from this course? if not I think they should be. I would try to split the section application up ino subsection even if it is all coherent.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
No gramma or spelling mistakes. Good language.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
I think the pictures are place a bit messy. The pictures are not placed next to the text which tells about the picture. I would do that, because it can be a bit confusing when you read that you have to look for the picture. But good choise of picture, they are easy to understand.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
It has both practical and academic relevance. Because it tells about how to use the CPM and the thought about it. Very nice with the section " The evolution from CP to DPM". I would like it more clear why CPM is relevant.
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
There is a lot about CPM on the internet, but this give a more detailed explenation on hav to program a project with CPM, which I think is a contribution.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
Yes there is prperly citing. It is based on data. Nice with the annotated bibliography, but shouldn't there be added more in it?
[edit] Response to feedback 1
Thank you for your nice feedback. I have divided the "Application" section into sub-sections and I have placed the pictures near to the text they refer. Thank you again for your contribution.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Nikoleta Kolitsopoulou
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
The abstract gives a nice overview to what is following in the text. It is easy to understand the concept of the method, but the summary shows that is an academic one. I did not mention grammatically and lexical errors.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
The structure of the article is coherent and there is a reasonable flow. It is easy for the reader to go through the text, although I would suggest to change a little bit the subsection "Application" to a section called "Application" and to create subsections for "Designing the network", etc.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
As I mentioned before I did not notice spelling, grammatical or lexical errors.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
I like the pictures that are illustrated in the article, but maybe it will be better if they are placed next to the relevant part of the article.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
The article is practical and has an academic relevance. It is really useful for the reader that plenty of information about this method are summarized in an article. I really like the section about "The Evolution from CPM to DPM".
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
On the web are a lot of sites or blogs that are referred on this method (CPM), but I think that this article is quite comprehensive and presents an nice overview of this topic.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
The article cite summarizes in a nice way the key references and the annotated bibliography is ok, but I would recommended to add more on it.
[edit] Response to feedback 2
Thank you for your nice feedback and comments. As I can see you state almost the same comments as the other reviewer, and this is logical. I have divided the "Application" section into sub-sections and I have placed the pictures at the correct point. Additionally, I have included more academic references.
