|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | http://apppm.man.dtu.dk/index.php/Planning_Poker_for_Improved_Project_Delivery
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Kevin Lim ''==
| |
| − | ===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 gives a good introduction alongside with the key focuses the article is going to talk about. It sets you off to a good start of knowing what you will be reading, while it also gives you a short description of what a project is.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | No suggestions here.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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 argumentation is clear and the explanation of the concepts are fine, although it can be quite hard to read in the sea of texts, it would be much easier if there were bullet points.
| |
| − | The flow runs quite well, it describes one thing and then the other things, it does not go back and forth while trying to explain too much. It feels like you go from A to B to C etc. so it is quite good.
| |
| − | It definitely does, I do not feel confused at any point.
| |
| − | It is consistent as it has to go good with the flow, therefore I do not think it is not consistent, furthermore I do not think there are any contradictions as the article very plainly explain what the concept is, and how it is applied.
| |
| − | A suggestion would be, make bullet points, try to make some points, divide it up so it would be easier to read and try maybe make some visualization, it will help on the understanding.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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 are some minor grammatical errors, but it is not so it is not understandable.
| |
| − | I personally think, writing such a long article without fill words, would be a challenge. I do not think though, there are fill words, just to fill the word count in this case.
| |
| − | Just a double check on the grammar, and about spelling error, there will be a underlined red line, when you write here in Wiki, so it will be avoided automatically.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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, which I miss.
| |
| − | I think the conclusion is short and precise, nothing you would ask questions about or think that, you did not read about that in the article.
| |
| − | I do not think I have any suggestions for the conclusion part.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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 it has both, it tells you how it can be used in real life, but it also tells you how it works, so I think this article is one of the articles, where you can look up, and think oh I can do it like what this article is telling me and actually use it.
| |
| − | It is, but I mean, as a reader, you should also know yourself if it is relevant or not, you cannot expect the article to lead you, if you have -10 knowledge in project management, which does not make sense to me. If you google a certain topic, you are typically working about a topic, and hence researching about a topic. So you know what you are doing so to speak.
| |
| − | I think it would be very cool again if it is illustrated, but otherwise it is good.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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 would say the article is most interesting for a practitioner, because there are not deep and heavy theory about the tool itself, if you want for academic read, it definitely needs some more theory, history, background and more. Nevertheless, I think the article is a good starting point for a practice.
| |
| − | No, not a significant contribution, I guess it can be called a normal contribution. If it should be significant, then in my opinion it should be much longer, and a topic that is not really written about. So it is not because it is a bad article, it is just so much of this already exist.
| |
| − | Regarding the questions asked, there are no improvement from my side, because it depends on what your focus point is. Practice or academic.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | It does, but I am not sure if you need to include which page and line. Personally I did not do that, just the name and not even the date visited.
| |
| − | Yes, you can see the links, and the dates.
| |
| − | It is based on data instead of opinion yes.
| |
| − | I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)
| |
| − | ---
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Kevin Lim''==
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | ''Answer here''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | ''Answer here''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | ''Answer here''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | ''Answer here''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | ''Answer here''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | ''Answer here''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | ''Answer here''
| |
