Talk:Meeting Management
(→Answer 6) |
(→Answer 7) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is relevant and practical for P/P/P management. Because meetings are important for management and we can see this clearly in the article.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Some of the references are not including page number. (References: 2,4,5,7,8)The article does not include an annotated bibliography. It can be included. There is no empirical evidence in the article. Current studies about meetings, in the literature could help to improve data and argument.'' |
Latest revision as of 10:22, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | OK |
| Language | OK with some misspellings |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Try to make it more clear what the article will contain. |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Yes but remember to focus on the importance of meeting management in project, program and portfolio management. |
| References | Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | Be careful not to try to cover too much it is better to go more in depth with specific parts. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Panagiotis Vounatsos
[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 nice and includes all topics developed in the article. It could be a bit longer to reach around 250 words (which are recommended)
[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 argument of the article is clear with a logical flow. The article is free of contradictions but maybe a smoother transition between the sections could be elaborated.
[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
There are a few spelling errors, but nothing that a proofing software can not correct. The author did not include filling words and did not mention the same things repeatingly.
[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
There are no figures or tables
[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 practical relevance and that is described in the abstract. A small passage could be added to note the importance of meetings.
[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 is very interesting, and it is a useful tool not only for project managers but for all employees participating in meetings to understand how the meeting process advances. A short explanation of the portfolio scenarios (growth scenario etc.) could be included.
[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 current version of the article does not include Annotated Bibliography. It would be nice to be included.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Osman Furkan Simsek
[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 clear and precise. In order to improve it, more details can be added from the article.
[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 argument is clear enough and there is a logical flow in the article. The idea is explained step by step without contradictions. In my view, there should be some concrete examples of successful meeting management in real companies. The idea is explained theoretically. For example, it was a good citation from Air Force Guide. Furthermore, "Techniques and tools for conducting meeting" part can be more explained with examples. I think it is relative to P/P/P 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
The article is grammatically correct. Language is precise.
[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
There are no tables or figures.
[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 relevant and practical for P/P/P management. Because meetings are important for management and we can see this clearly in the article.
[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 is not interesting but useful for meetings. It is a good summary of the literature about a meeting. In this last week of the deadline, the author can search for more resources, tools and examples in the real companies.
[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
Some of the references are not including page number. (References: 2,4,5,7,8)The article does not include an annotated bibliography. It can be included. There is no empirical evidence in the article. Current studies about meetings, in the literature could help to improve data and argument.
