Talk:Conflict Resolution in Project Management
Rasmusbjerg (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|'''References'''|| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed. | |'''References'''|| Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed. | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Bjerg''== | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Bjerg''== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 101: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''No Annotated bibliography yet, as there are no references.'' | ''No Annotated bibliography yet, as there are no references.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Rikke Louise Kjær Knudsen''== | ||
| + | ===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 key focus is claer and well stated. The direction which the writer has chosen is clear and relevant.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''A good flow with lots of sections-headers to get a good overview. The article is built rationally and just need a good discussion and summation in the end. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Spotless in the the articles current state.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 or tabels yet'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Well defined focus, but still need some theory.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Good use for language so the current state is interesting. Promises well for the rest for the article.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Can't tell from the current state of the article.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 21:57, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | Good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant. |
| References | Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg
[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 key focus is pretty clear. At the moment (article clearly not finished) theres a lot of models/tools being used, and not any explaning to the models. I would explain them, so the reader need to look them up, or know them beforehand.
[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
Logic is pretty clear. a nice build up in the article. I needs an "ending" or something to wrap it up.
[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
I could'nt find any errors, but a lot of the text is still not done.
[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 tabels yet
[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 have a good focus on what to do, but there's a lack of explaning the process in this. but again this i clearly not finished
[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
Its hard to determine when so much is still missing.
[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
No Annotated bibliography yet, as there are no references.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Rikke Louise Kjær Knudsen
[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 key focus is claer and well stated. The direction which the writer has chosen is clear and relevant.
[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
A good flow with lots of sections-headers to get a good overview. The article is built rationally and just need a good discussion and summation in the end.
[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
Spotless in the the articles current state.
[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 tabels yet
[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
Well defined focus, but still need some theory.
[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
Good use for language so the current state is interesting. Promises well for the rest for the article.
[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
Can't tell from the current state of the article.
