Talk:Design Thinking
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is somewhat coherent, but can be improved. Missing punctuation. Also, I would recommend adding titles (...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|'''References'''|| Try to use the list of references (if it makes sense). | |'''References'''|| Try to use the list of references (if it makes sense). | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Durant Mangum''== | ||
| + | ===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 was nice and direct, but did you have any sources?.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 think the logic is good, as it is a fairly chronological, logical process you explain. Is there any more theory maybe? '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Grammar was fine! "'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No tables and figures, but that is okay, I am sure you are working on them now!” | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''It seems relevant to project management when it comes to the development of new products. So yeah, relevant!'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Maybe just go into more depth. It feels like the article is lacking' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | "I am sure you will add one.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 23:15, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is somewhat coherent, but can be improved. Missing punctuation. Also, I would recommend adding titles (e.g. for the abstract) instead of just bold text. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. However, the second part of the abstract isn't easy to follow. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well explained. Keep up the good work and make sure to include an explanation of the article purpose. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant. The first part started well, however the second part of the abstract focuses on generic applications rather than project/program/portfolio management. Make sure to keep within the realms of project/program/portfolio management. |
| References | Try to use the list of references (if it makes sense). |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Durant Mangum
[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 was nice and direct, but did you have any sources?.
[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 think the logic is good, as it is a fairly chronological, logical process you explain. Is there any more theory maybe?
[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
Grammar was fine! "
[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
No tables and figures, but that is okay, I am sure you are working on them now!”
[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 seems relevant to project management when it comes to the development of new products. So yeah, relevant!
[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
Maybe just go into more depth. It feels like the article is lacking'
[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
"I am sure you will add one.
