Talk:Milestones in Project Planning

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good but could be more coherent in some parts |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Art...")
 
(→‎Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|'''References'''||  Good
 
|'''References'''||  Good
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Bjerg''==
 +
===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===
 +
''There's only an abstract, so this peer review is hard to do, but, the key focus is clear. It would maybe not write so much about what a milestone is in the abstract.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Logic is pretty clear. Good build up in the abstract ''
 +
 +
===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 ===
 +
''I could'nt find any errors''
 +
 +
===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 tabels 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===
 +
''hard to determine with only the abstract''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''same as answer 5.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''also no Annotated bibliography yet''

Latest revision as of 11:56, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language Good but could be more coherent in some parts
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Article purpose explanation Good
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Good


[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg

[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

There's only an abstract, so this peer review is hard to do, but, the key focus is clear. It would maybe not write so much about what a milestone is in the abstract.

[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

Logic is pretty clear. Good build up in the abstract

[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

I could'nt find any errors

[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 tabels 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

hard to determine with only the abstract

[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

same as answer 5.

[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

also no Annotated bibliography yet

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Milestones_in_Project_Planning&oldid=66589"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox