Talk:Requirements management using SysML
(→Answer 4) |
(→Answer 3) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
''No Annotated bibliography. No references throughout the whole article. One single reference (without source, author, date etc) Remember to use Vancouver citation style'' | ''No Annotated bibliography. No references throughout the whole article. One single reference (without source, author, date etc) Remember to use Vancouver citation style'' | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | |
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Andreas Riposati''== | ||
| + | Article draft seems to be incomplete. Therefore it's sometimes hard to give an in-depth feedback | ||
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 116: | Line 118: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The summary is quite good and gives a clear and brief explanation of the article's relevance. It needs to be finished". |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 132: | Line 134: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''A chapter about the subject's limitations could be interesting to have (and I'm pretty sure you have to include it). Overall, the structure seems okay." |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 144: | Line 146: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I found a few spelling errors. Try to run the article in Grammarly...this will also check the grammar.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 156: | Line 158: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No figures and/or tables yet." |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 168: | Line 170: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It seems really relevant, but it is hard to tell to what extent, as a lot of text is still missing and the subject has therefore not be fully analysed yet.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 180: | Line 182: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Same answer as above.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 194: | Line 196: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''No Annotated bibliography and only a single references in the article". |
Latest revision as of 12:33, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
The abstract seems incomplete. However, please find my immediate feedback below (19-Feb-2019)
| Text clarity & language | The text is okay, however there's a lack of flow/consistency (too many dotted lines). |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Good. Ensure to emphasize how the tool is relevant and its project/program/portfolio management without getting into too much technical detail about the modelling language itself. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good references. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Andrea Könnecke
Article draft seems to be incomplete. Therefore it's sometimes hard to give an in-depth feedback
[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
Abstract needs to be completed. However it shows a good structure including the insights of the article and the connection to PPP management
[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 structure of the article is okay. Try to use subchapter, include overall limitations
[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 grammar is okay, there are some spelling 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
for now, there are no tables/figures --> try to use figures in the description of each approach
[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
According the abstract, this topic is relevant for PPP Management. Furthermore, it is probably relevant in an academic and practical way as many of the students who are studying engineering management don’t know anything about modelling languages can give a good overview. Try to be as deep and precise but understandable as possible while writing the article (for people without background knowledge)
[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
It can make a good contribution as it focusses on one specific modelling language in the context of PPP Management.
[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
No Annotated bibliography. No references throughout the whole article. One single reference (without source, author, date etc) Remember to use Vancouver citation style
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Andreas Riposati
Article draft seems to be incomplete. Therefore it's sometimes hard to give an in-depth feedback
[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 is quite good and gives a clear and brief explanation of the article's relevance. It needs to be finished".
[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
A chapter about the subject's limitations could be interesting to have (and I'm pretty sure you have to include it). Overall, the structure seems okay."
[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 found a few spelling errors. Try to run the article in Grammarly...this will also check the grammar.
[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 figures and/or tables 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
It seems really relevant, but it is hard to tell to what extent, as a lot of text is still missing and the subject has therefore not be fully analysed yet.
[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 answer as above.
[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
No Annotated bibliography and only a single references in the article".
