Talk:Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Giorgia Scartozzi) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Giorgia Scartozzi''== | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Giorgia Scartozzi - S182656''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The abstract is very clear. It explains what the topic is about in a quite logical way.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article has a good flow: there’s fluency while reading, parts are well connected and it’s free of contradictions. No specific improvements to suggest.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The Wiki article is very well written, free of remarkable errors. No specific improvements to suggest.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The figures are clear, the author gave proper references including if the figure was self-made/inspired by.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is of high practical and academic relevance, explaining quite clearly the importance of having a leader able to adapt to circumstances during project management'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article gives a big picture of a very interesting topic by being as precise as possible and making a quite significant contribution beyond a web search.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | ''Annotated bibliography is provided by the author, but can be further elaborated'' |
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Gustav Josephsen s154318== | ||
| + | ===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 is short and clear and introduces the reader to the topic quickly and structured. No improvements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The structure of the article is built intuitive and has a clear focus of the essentials of SL-framework. | ||
| + | Maybe the only thing to point out is a few concrete examples. This is already done a lot, but every time when defining a new aspect of the SL-framework, it is nice to be presented with an example. (Really just a small ‘extra detail’) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The use of language is academic and emphasizes the points made in the text. Only very few spelling mistakes. No real improvements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The table used visualizes the topic well and is easy to understand. No improvements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The article is highly relevant to project management, and the article underlines why the function of a SL-framework can be useful for an organization. | ||
| + | Only improvement could be a connection between SL and ‘project, program and portfolio management’, in order to meet with the curriculum. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Given the amount of words of the task the article treats the topic into depths. Surely you could write about this topic for all eternity but considered the requirements of the task the subject is explained thoroughly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The bibliography gives a short and well introduction to 3 of the references used. Dunno if all the references should have an explanation in the bibliography or just the most important. Else no improvements. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:29, 24 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent, however there's a few grammatical errors. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Good, but it can be slightly elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Good. Continue to ensure the article is relevant to project, program or portfolio management and NOT organizational management. |
| References | Make sure to use references wherever needed. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Giorgia Scartozzi - S182656
[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 abstract is very clear. It explains what the topic is about in a quite logical way.
[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 article has a good flow: there’s fluency while reading, parts are well connected and it’s free of contradictions. No specific improvements to suggest.
[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 Wiki article is very well written, free of remarkable errors. No specific improvements to suggest.
[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
The figures are clear, the author gave proper references including if the figure was self-made/inspired by.
[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
The article is of high practical and academic relevance, explaining quite clearly the importance of having a leader able to adapt to circumstances during project management
[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
The article gives a big picture of a very interesting topic by being as precise as possible and making a quite significant contribution beyond a web search.
[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
Annotated bibliography is provided by the author, but can be further elaborated
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Gustav Josephsen s154318
[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 short and clear and introduces the reader to the topic quickly and structured. No improvements.
[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 built intuitive and has a clear focus of the essentials of SL-framework. Maybe the only thing to point out is a few concrete examples. This is already done a lot, but every time when defining a new aspect of the SL-framework, it is nice to be presented with an example. (Really just a small ‘extra detail’)
[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 use of language is academic and emphasizes the points made in the text. Only very few spelling mistakes. No real improvements.
[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
The table used visualizes the topic well and is easy to understand. No improvements.
[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
The article is highly relevant to project management, and the article underlines why the function of a SL-framework can be useful for an organization. Only improvement could be a connection between SL and ‘project, program and portfolio management’, in order to meet with the curriculum.
[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
Given the amount of words of the task the article treats the topic into depths. Surely you could write about this topic for all eternity but considered the requirements of the task the subject is explained thoroughly.
[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
The bibliography gives a short and well introduction to 3 of the references used. Dunno if all the references should have an explanation in the bibliography or just the most important. Else no improvements.
