Talk:Project Sponsorship
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos": new section) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? Yes |
Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly | Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents. | |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | I would suggest to make some sentences shorter, in order to make easier the understanding. | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | I would add some figures to support the ideas. | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship. | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | I would add some tools that are used in dealing with project sponsorship | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes |
| − | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? no |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | I would summarise the content of each reference. |
| + | |||
| + | == Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" == | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | Very definition oriented, I would add some further explanations or practical approaches. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the argument clear? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | Well established, I would suggest one or two more topics added to complete the profile of project sponsorship. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | Broad vocabulary, maybe shorten some sentences. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | Figures missing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | - | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | Some more focus on the surroundings of the sponsor management and its relation to program management. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | References might need description and italic font in the appropriate places. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:33, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is good. However, it can be more concise and coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | This needs to be elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Mostly
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
I would outline the purpose of the article and I would introduce a brief definition of project sponsorship to better understand the following.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly
Does one part build upon the other? Mostly
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
I would suggest to make some sentences shorter, in order to make easier the understanding.
[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
I would add some figures to support the ideas.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship.
[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
I would add some tools that are used in dealing with project sponsorship
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? no
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
I would summarise the content of each reference.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos"
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
Very definition oriented, I would add some further explanations or practical approaches.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
Well established, I would suggest one or two more topics added to complete the profile of project sponsorship.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
Broad vocabulary, maybe shorten some sentences.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
Figures missing.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
-
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
Some more focus on the surroundings of the sponsor management and its relation to program management.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
References might need description and italic font in the appropriate places.
