Talk:Managing Successful Programmes (MSP)
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| − | == | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Nanna''== |
| + | ===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=== |
| − | + | ''The summary is clear and cover all the key elements. '' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | '''Question 3: Is the | + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== |
| − | Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-) | + | '''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=== | ||
| + | ''I like the flow and the coherence of the parts '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Grammar and spelling is fine and easy to read. A few sentences are really long and could maybe be shorter.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The figure is a good illustration and used to support the text nicely. Be aware the a figure number is missing in the text ("Figure X"). The flow is logic and there is a coherence and consistancy throughout. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Yes it is of high relevance.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article explains well how the tool works but could provide a more hands on guideline for the readers (project managers) on how they use it.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Anne''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The summary is very clear and covers the main/key focus well.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Your argumentation is very clear and concise. It is well-structured, which gives the article a great flow. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Your written language is good and precise - no huge grammatical or spelling errors. Some of your sentences is very long with many commas, maybe it can be shortened a bit. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Your figure is very clear and meaningful for the article. It is good that you have the illustration and afterward elaborate the theory (they complement each other nicely) - again the flow of the article works really well. Please notice that your reference to the Figure is missing the number. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 is highly relevant and it is made very clear in the article.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The tool is well described throughout the entire article. A stepwise guidance - a how to - could be beneficial and make the article even more relevant for the reader.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''You are missing the references - I have noticed that you have them in the text, but you have not referenced it 'correctly', so please remember that.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 20:53, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Good
Language Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the he main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/mandatory list of references to add credibility. Also, is it true that all organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?
Purpose explanation Good and sets up the reader's expectations well
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Program Manager etc?
- What will the reader get out of this?
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nanna
[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 summary is clear and cover all the key elements.
[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
I like the flow and the coherence of the parts
[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
Grammar and spelling is fine and easy to read. A few sentences are really long and could maybe be shorter.
[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
The figure is a good illustration and used to support the text nicely. Be aware the a figure number is missing in the text ("Figure X"). The flow is logic and there is a coherence and consistancy throughout.
[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
Yes it is of high relevance.
[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
The article explains well how the tool works but could provide a more hands on guideline for the readers (project managers) on how they use it.
[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
Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Anne
[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 summary is very clear and covers the main/key focus well.
[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
Your argumentation is very clear and concise. It is well-structured, which gives the article a great flow.
[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
Your written language is good and precise - no huge grammatical or spelling errors. Some of your sentences is very long with many commas, maybe it can be shortened a bit.
[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
Your figure is very clear and meaningful for the article. It is good that you have the illustration and afterward elaborate the theory (they complement each other nicely) - again the flow of the article works really well. Please notice that your reference to the Figure is missing the number.
[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 is highly relevant and it is made very clear in the article.
[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
The tool is well described throughout the entire article. A stepwise guidance - a how to - could be beneficial and make the article even more relevant for the reader.
[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
You are missing the references - I have noticed that you have them in the text, but you have not referenced it 'correctly', so please remember that.
