Talk:Uniqueness of a project
(→Abstract Feedback) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Baptiste Hubert) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Yes the abstract is the first thing that you read in a artcile, and here, the abstract makes you want to read more about this article'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''For the beginning of the article, the argument is clear. For the rest, we will be able to made a feedback when the whole artcile will write'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are not language error. It is good like this'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no figure and no table in the artcile, fur the moment'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It is relevant for project manager'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is interesting for both, for practitioner and for academic.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The references are listed, the annotated bibliography need to be more clearrly, or more worked'' |
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Ugur Erman''== | ||
| + | NOTE: The peer review feedback was conducted on 19 February 2018 when only the abstract was written! | ||
| − | |||
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 111: | Line 113: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Yes it is very clear what the author of this article wants to write about and there is a reference to one of the mandatory references in the abstract which is nice to see. The author has also stated what will be discussed later in the article. It is nice to see that this has been written as a part of all the other text instead of listing the things with points or numbers. It gives the text a good flow.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 127: | Line 129: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The argument is clear. However it is difficult to argue whether the article has a logical flow or not since only the abstract has been written. The same can be said about whether one part builds upon the other. The flow in the abstract itself is good. The text in the abstract is consistent in its argument and free of contradictions.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 139: | Line 141: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Overall the language is precise and there are no unnecessary fill words.'' |
| + | |||
| + | ''There are some minor typing errors which will be listed here:'' | ||
| + | ''"A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create '''a unique''' product or service (an unique instead)."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''"But since some '''project''' are more unique than others... (projects instead of project)"'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''"This article '''strive''' to... (strives instead of strive)"'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''"...based on a project management '''methode''' (method instead of methode)"'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''"...to thoroughly define the uniqueness of a that particular project (is the word "that" an error?)"'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''"...benefits and challenges of having '''a unique''' project... (an unique)"'' | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 151: | Line 166: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no figures and tables in the abstract so a conclusion cannot be made based on that.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 163: | Line 178: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is very relevant for especially project managers. Very early in the abstract is it stated (with reference to PMI definitions) that projects are unique. Since projects are unique, it might be difficult for a project manager to decide how the project should be approached. This is also what the author has stated in the abstract. The rest of the article has not been written yet but based on the topic of the article and the questions in the abstract, it seems to be very relevant for project managers.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 175: | Line 190: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''This is difficult to answer since only the abstract has been written. However an article about the uniqueness of a project sounds interesting'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 189: | Line 204: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The references are correctly listed. The list of annotated bibliography is not filled properly yet which makes sense since the article is far from done yet.'' |
Latest revision as of 18:42, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance of the topic for a Project/Program Manager.
Try to focus in the Project/Program environment and use relevant literature from relevant databases.
Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your annotated bibliography section are references.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Baptiste Hubert
[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
Yes the abstract is the first thing that you read in a artcile, and here, the abstract makes you want to read more about this article
[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
For the beginning of the article, the argument is clear. For the rest, we will be able to made a feedback when the whole artcile will write
[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 not language error. It is good like this
[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 figure and no table in the artcile, fur the moment
[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 relevant for 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
The article is interesting for both, for practitioner and for academic.
[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 references are listed, the annotated bibliography need to be more clearrly, or more worked
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Ugur Erman
NOTE: The peer review feedback was conducted on 19 February 2018 when only the abstract was written!
[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
Yes it is very clear what the author of this article wants to write about and there is a reference to one of the mandatory references in the abstract which is nice to see. The author has also stated what will be discussed later in the article. It is nice to see that this has been written as a part of all the other text instead of listing the things with points or numbers. It gives the text a good flow.
[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 argument is clear. However it is difficult to argue whether the article has a logical flow or not since only the abstract has been written. The same can be said about whether one part builds upon the other. The flow in the abstract itself is good. The text in the abstract is consistent in its argument and free of contradictions.
[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
Overall the language is precise and there are no unnecessary fill words.
There are some minor typing errors which will be listed here: "A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service (an unique instead)."
"But since some project are more unique than others... (projects instead of project)"
"This article strive to... (strives instead of strive)"
"...based on a project management methode (method instead of methode)"
"...to thoroughly define the uniqueness of a that particular project (is the word "that" an error?)"
"...benefits and challenges of having a unique project... (an unique)"
[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 figures and tables in the abstract so a conclusion cannot be made based on that.
[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 very relevant for especially project managers. Very early in the abstract is it stated (with reference to PMI definitions) that projects are unique. Since projects are unique, it might be difficult for a project manager to decide how the project should be approached. This is also what the author has stated in the abstract. The rest of the article has not been written yet but based on the topic of the article and the questions in the abstract, it seems to be very relevant for project managers.
[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
This is difficult to answer since only the abstract has been written. However an article about the uniqueness of a project sounds interesting
[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 references are correctly listed. The list of annotated bibliography is not filled properly yet which makes sense since the article is far from done yet.
