Talk:Investment portfolio management

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical errors. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| G...")
 
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
 
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|'''References'''|| Missing references.
 
|'''References'''|| Missing references.
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Thea Pedersen''==
 +
===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===
 +
''What is PPM?''
 +
 +
''The summery consist of the explanation of PPM and IPM. But it does not make a summary of what the article will be about.''
 +
 +
''A clear definition and description of what the text will be about, what will be discussed and so on.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''I don’t see a flow in the article, the article is not done and is will missing a build up structure. ''
 +
 +
''You need to make a more clear flow, where one section builds up 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's a few grammatical errors. You need to read through the article to get a better flow in the text, but also to get a more consistent language. ''
 +
 +
===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 is a figure, but you do not mention it in the text.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''I think the part of the topic written is of high practical and academic relevance.''
 +
 +
''It is clear why it is relevant. ''
 +
 +
''More connections to the industry will be good. Why do the use it and who''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''I think the article will be, when it is done, interesting for academic to read.''
 +
 +
''I would recommend that you find more academic references. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Citation is fine. ''
 +
 +
''You need to make a briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article.''
 +
 +
''It is based on empirical data.''
 +
 +
''You need to write finish the article and you need to get a better flow, and some better and more academic sources. ''

Latest revision as of 15:11, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language The text is good, however there's a few grammatical errors.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good. However, a clear link to engineering project, program or portfolio management needs to be made.
Article purpose explanation Well elaborated. However, see comment below.
Relevance to curriculum No clear relevance. This is linked to finance and not engineering project, program or portfolio management. A clear link to the curriculum needs to be made.
References Missing references.


[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Thea Pedersen

[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

What is PPM?

The summery consist of the explanation of PPM and IPM. But it does not make a summary of what the article will be about.

A clear definition and description of what the text will be about, what will be discussed and so on.

[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 don’t see a flow in the article, the article is not done and is will missing a build up structure.

You need to make a more clear flow, where one section builds up 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's a few grammatical errors. You need to read through the article to get a better flow in the text, but also to get a more consistent language.

[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 is a figure, but you do not mention it in the text.

[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

I think the part of the topic written is of high practical and academic relevance.

It is clear why it is relevant.

More connections to the industry will be good. Why do the use it and who

[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

I think the article will be, when it is done, interesting for academic to read.

I would recommend that you find more academic references.

[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

Citation is fine.

You need to make a briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article.

It is based on empirical data.

You need to write finish the article and you need to get a better flow, and some better and more academic sources.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Investment_portfolio_management&oldid=66723"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox