Talk:Gantt chart and Scheduling techniques
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
There's some progress. However, I cannot give much feedback at this point as the abstract is incomplete (19-Feb-2019). | There's some progress. However, I cannot give much feedback at this point as the abstract is incomplete (19-Feb-2019). | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sofie Martinussen''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I think the abstact is good and creal but I would suggest to include all the tool mentioned in the article in the abstract, in order for the reader to know what is coming.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The structure is generally good, i like the fact that the tools are presented in a logical way - e.g. first do this and then this. However, I will suggest to move up the section about scheduling so it comes before project time management, as you mention a few things that come before project time management. '' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Overall the writing is good, however, a few grammar mistakes are made - more punctuation would help the reader.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very nice figures, I like the visual elements. '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very relevant topic, however, it could be made more clear why it is relevant, e.g. reference to project success.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Yes, very. '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good referencing, but remember to describe the sources.'' |
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Simon Muurholm Hansen''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The abstract sums up the content of the article in a good way'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The argumentation of the article is solid and the overall readability of the article is good.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The grammar of the article is good overall with a few minor mistakes such as the present tense verbs in third person.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The figures are quite good and very illustrative. The video is a nice touch.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is highly relevant both academicly and practically is it shows the use of a very usefull scheduling tool.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Same answer as question 5'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Annotated bibliography is still missing. Otherwise overall good citations.'' |
Latest revision as of 20:54, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
There's some progress. However, I cannot give much feedback at this point as the abstract is incomplete (19-Feb-2019).
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sofie Martinussen
[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
I think the abstact is good and creal but I would suggest to include all the tool mentioned in the article in the abstract, in order for the reader to know what is coming.
[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 is generally good, i like the fact that the tools are presented in a logical way - e.g. first do this and then this. However, I will suggest to move up the section about scheduling so it comes before project time management, as you mention a few things that come before project time management.
[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
Overall the writing is good, however, a few grammar mistakes are made - more punctuation would help the reader.
[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
Very nice figures, I like the visual elements.
[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
Very relevant topic, however, it could be made more clear why it is relevant, e.g. reference to project success.
[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
Yes, very.
[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
Good referencing, but remember to describe the sources.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Simon Muurholm Hansen
[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 sums up the content of the article in a good 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 argumentation of the article is solid and the overall readability of the article is good.
[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 of the article is good overall with a few minor mistakes such as the present tense verbs in third person.
[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 quite good and very illustrative. The video is a nice touch.
[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 both academicly and practically is it shows the use of a very usefull scheduling tool.
[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 question 5
[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 still missing. Otherwise overall good citations.
