Talk:Project Charter
Ragnhildur (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ragnhildur) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ragnhildur) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | ''Gives a general understanding of the topic. I would suggest to connect the paragraphs better together, but like you write in the beginning, this section is not ready.'' | + | ''Gives a general understanding of the topic. I would suggest to connect the paragraphs better together and talk about the key focus, but like you write in the beginning, this section is not ready.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | ''As for now there is not enough written to be able to answer this question.'' | + | ''As for now there is not enough written to be able to answer this question well, but I think it will be interesting to read when it's ready.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''There is no annotated bibliography or references yet, it's still in progress. The PMBOK addresses this subject very well in chapter 4 so I think you could look at that if you haven't already. '' | + | ''There is no annotated bibliography or references yet, it's still in progress. The PMBOK addresses this subject very well in chapter 4 so I think you could look at that if you haven't already and/or other mandatory references. '' |
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Hildur Gudmundsdottir''== | ||
| + | ===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 abstract is still missing, but there are many good points in the introduction that could be emphasized on in the abstract, as well as a brief introduction of all sections covered in the article. The article needs a better start, with something to catch the reader, more of a general information about a project charter, and why it would be used in a company'' | ||
| + | . | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article is still in progress, so the flow needs a little fixing, but should be better when the article is ready. It needs some connections between sections, so people can easily transition from one section to another. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''There are some errors in the grammar, and some sentences need a little fixing and more flow. I suggest having someone proofread, I can help if needed :) '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''There are no tables or figures yet.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 a relevant topic, and well explained how it can be used by a project manager.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Still missing content to decide this, but the topic is good and sure it will be a good article.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Not there yet. The PMBOK is obviously being used, so putting that in bibliography with a little explanation of how it is used throughout would be good'' | ||
Latest revision as of 22:06, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ragnhildur
[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
Gives a general understanding of the topic. I would suggest to connect the paragraphs better together and talk about the key focus, but like you write in the beginning, this section is not ready.
[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 article is still in progress so I'm sure it will change. As for now I feel like something about the application of the concept is missing though it may be hard for this topic. At least more information about how it's used, after it has been developed. I would like to read more about why to use project charter and the benefits of using it. You address all of this in the introduction so maybe it will be there in the final hand in. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and have the introduction more general going into more detail in later sections. Remember to have a logical flow between sections in the end.
[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
The overall text is understandable and easy to read. There are minor spelling and grammatical errors, so I would recommend you, or get somebody else you know, to read it over before the final hand it.
[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
There are no tables or figures yet.
[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
Very relevant subject and made very clear why project managers should use this method but you could elaborate further on how it is relevant (which is still in progress).
[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
As for now there is not enough written to be able to answer this question well, but I think it will be interesting to read when it's ready.
[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
There is no annotated bibliography or references yet, it's still in progress. The PMBOK addresses this subject very well in chapter 4 so I think you could look at that if you haven't already and/or other mandatory references.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Hildur Gudmundsdottir
[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 is still missing, but there are many good points in the introduction that could be emphasized on in the abstract, as well as a brief introduction of all sections covered in the article. The article needs a better start, with something to catch the reader, more of a general information about a project charter, and why it would be used in a company .
[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 article is still in progress, so the flow needs a little fixing, but should be better when the article is ready. It needs some connections between sections, so people can easily transition from one section to another.
[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
There are some errors in the grammar, and some sentences need a little fixing and more flow. I suggest having someone proofread, I can help if needed :)
[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
There are no tables or figures yet.
[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 a relevant topic, and well explained how it can be used by a project manager.
[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
Still missing content to decide this, but the topic is good and sure it will be a good article.
[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
Not there yet. The PMBOK is obviously being used, so putting that in bibliography with a little explanation of how it is used throughout would be good
