Talk:Post-Project Review
(→Answer 7) |
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Jan Talaš) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
''Suggestions'': Create references and briefly summarize them at the end of the article. | ''Suggestions'': Create references and briefly summarize them at the end of the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Jan Talaš''== | ||
| + | ===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 fully focuses on the topic and provides a clear overview. It is well separated into paragraphs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Suggestion: Focus on the language and check for grammar or spelling errors. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 argument is mostly clear, and the article has mostly a logical flow. The ''Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review'' doesn't fit in ''Big Idea'' and should be rather among ''Limitations''. | ||
| + | The article seems to be consistent. However, some parts are unclear to me: '''Use Project Kick-Off Meetings''' for example. It doesn't state the relation to the topic and isn't even finished. | ||
| + | The text on '''Responsibility of Post-Project Review''' In ''Limitations'' part isn't clear as it doesn't address any constraints or limitations. Arguments are not always entirely clear. (See '''Use Project Kick-Off Meetings''' for instance). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Suggestion: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ask yourself: How is this part relevant to the topic (Post-Project Review) when reading individual sections of the article. The location of ''Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review'' should be considered. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The writing has many grammatical and spelling errors. The language structure is poor sometimes and can be better. | ||
| + | For example: ''The framework starts by having a kick-off meeting before executing a project, wherein a post-project review are conducted with an experienced facilitator after the end of project. Further on, knowledge brokers from the post-project review informs the kick-off meeting for the project.'' | ||
| + | The sentence structure makes it harder to read and understand. Some grammatical errors are presented. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Suggestion: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Have a friend to read the article and outline unclear sections and work on them afterwards. Use a tool for a grammar check (for example Grammarly - available online). | ||
| + | ===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 figures or tables. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The article is more practical oriented. The relevance is well stated in ''Post-Project Review to improve organizational learning'' part. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Suggestion: | ||
| + | |||
| + | State a particular real case to demonstrate the use of the method, if possible. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 provides much information that can only be found in certain books. There are some references to different publications. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Suggestion: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Evaluate the current state and use of the method, if possible. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Although different publications are mentioned in the article, there are no references or citations. Thus, the article doesn't summarize the key references. The text is based rather on empirical data. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Suggestion: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Make references when needed and describe their relevance in the end of the article. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:17, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ioannis Papadantonakis
[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 presents with clarity the key points and the contribution of the article. Also, it is quite clear that the Project Manager is the reader of this article.
Suggestions: None
[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’s argument is clear as it describes a method, its application and the potential restrictions. Moreover, the article follows a mostly logical flow with only one exception. Specifically, the “Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review” would fit better into the Limitations Chapter. Finally, it is consistent in its argument and free of contradictions.
Suggestion: The “Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review” may be moved to the Limitations chapter.
[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 writing has a few grammatical and spelling errors and the language can be also improved.
Suggestions: Check and read carefully the article with a view to correcting these mistakes.
[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 or tables.
Suggestions: None
[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 characterized by practical relevance and the reader can easily understand the grade of relevance.
Suggestion: None
[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 stimulates the reader as it deals with a method that is widely used by Project Managers. Furthermore, the level of knowledge it offers is much higher than the information that someone can find by searching the web. It would be also useful making a reference to the new trends of the Post-Project Review.
Suggestion: Try to find new trends in the use of the Post-Project Review.
[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 cites and acknowledges previous work. But, the references are absent from the text and therefore the key references are not summarized at the end of the article. Finally, it is quoting empirical data instead of opinion.
Suggestions: Create references and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Jan Talaš
[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 fully focuses on the topic and provides a clear overview. It is well separated into paragraphs.
Suggestion: Focus on the language and check for grammar or spelling 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 argument is mostly clear, and the article has mostly a logical flow. The Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review doesn't fit in Big Idea and should be rather among Limitations. The article seems to be consistent. However, some parts are unclear to me: Use Project Kick-Off Meetings for example. It doesn't state the relation to the topic and isn't even finished. The text on Responsibility of Post-Project Review In Limitations part isn't clear as it doesn't address any constraints or limitations. Arguments are not always entirely clear. (See Use Project Kick-Off Meetings for instance).
Suggestion:
Ask yourself: How is this part relevant to the topic (Post-Project Review) when reading individual sections of the article. The location of Skepticism towards Post-Projects Review should be considered.
[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 writing has many grammatical and spelling errors. The language structure is poor sometimes and can be better. For example: The framework starts by having a kick-off meeting before executing a project, wherein a post-project review are conducted with an experienced facilitator after the end of project. Further on, knowledge brokers from the post-project review informs the kick-off meeting for the project. The sentence structure makes it harder to read and understand. Some grammatical errors are presented.
Suggestion:
Have a friend to read the article and outline unclear sections and work on them afterwards. Use a tool for a grammar check (for example Grammarly - available online).
[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 or tables.
[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 more practical oriented. The relevance is well stated in Post-Project Review to improve organizational learning part.
Suggestion:
State a particular real case to demonstrate the use of the method, if possible.
[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 provides much information that can only be found in certain books. There are some references to different publications.
Suggestion:
Evaluate the current state and use of the method, if possible.
[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
Although different publications are mentioned in the article, there are no references or citations. Thus, the article doesn't summarize the key references. The text is based rather on empirical data.
Suggestion:
Make references when needed and describe their relevance in the end of the article.
