Talk:Brainstorming as a risk identification method
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | The summary is very good and clearly understandable. Maybe providing another citation would strengthen the argumentation. | ||
| Line 135: | Line 136: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | As the article is not finished yet this question can't be answered. | ||
| Line 148: | Line 150: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | The article is written professionally and contains now grammatical or spelling errors. The language used is easy to understand. | |
===Question 4=== | ===Question 4=== | ||
| Line 161: | Line 163: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Since now the article doesn't provide any figures or tables. | |
===Question 5=== | ===Question 5=== | ||
| Line 173: | Line 175: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | As the article provides only the abstract since now the question can't be answered. | |
| + | The abstract is providing good information and arouses interest to further read it. | ||
===Question 6=== | ===Question 6=== | ||
| Line 186: | Line 189: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | As the article provides only the abstract since now the question can't be answered. | |
| + | It will be interesting to read how detailed the author can connect the common brainstorming approach to risk identification. | ||
===Question 7=== | ===Question 7=== | ||
| Line 201: | Line 205: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | The only source used since now was provided as reading material and is therefore a reliable source to use. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:55, 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 to find relevant literature and elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Lorenz Sieferle
[edit] Question 1
Quality of the summary:
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
In general, the summary is easy to understand and explains clearly the topic of the wiki article and its relevance in project, program and portfolio management.
[edit] Question 2
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 questions can not be answered as just the abstract is uploaded so far.
[edit] Question 3
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 abstract is easy to read and there are no spelling and grammatical errors. To upgrade the writing style some linking words could be implemented e.g. Furthermore, in addition, Moreover etc.
[edit] Question 4
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 within the article yet.
[edit] Question 5
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 abstract explains briefly the relevance of brainstorming as a risk identification method. However, it should be described and elaborated in more detail in the further text.
[edit] Question 6
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 just the abstract Is uploaded this question can not be answered.
[edit] Question 7
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
Good reference, which is also given from the lecturers as recommended bibliography. Within the rest of the article it is necessary to implement two or three additional serious references to ensure the credibility and plausibility of the article.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer Name: Cetin Arslan
[edit] Question 1
Quality of the summary:
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
The summary is very good and clearly understandable. Maybe providing another citation would strengthen the argumentation.
[edit] Question 2
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
As the article is not finished yet this question can't be answered.
[edit] Question 3
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 article is written professionally and contains now grammatical or spelling errors. The language used is easy to understand.
[edit] Question 4
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
Since now the article doesn't provide any figures or tables.
[edit] Question 5
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
As the article provides only the abstract since now the question can't be answered. The abstract is providing good information and arouses interest to further read it.
[edit] Question 6
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 the article provides only the abstract since now the question can't be answered. It will be interesting to read how detailed the author can connect the common brainstorming approach to risk identification.
[edit] Question 7
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 only source used since now was provided as reading material and is therefore a reliable source to use.
