Talk:Shannon & Weaver Model for Communication
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | Overall the article is coherent and transparent, as the argument the author wants to communicate is clear from the beginning. Maybe I would have the 'Limitations' chapter | + | Overall the article is coherent and transparent, as the argument the author wants to communicate is clear from the beginning. Maybe I would have the 'Limitations' chapter after the one about the application of the model within Project Management. But that's a matter of taste, I guess. |
| Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The abstract gives a good overview of the article. Maybe some of the first part can be used as an introduction.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article has a good flow and does not contradict itself. It was an interesting historical overview, it maybe it could be shortened a little bit.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good language, did not find errors'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I liked the models, there were only 2 but you mentioned in the top there is some problems with uploading.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I think it is very relevant to be able to analyze communication. I would like to know more practical tips and implementation, in the end you mentioned communication management strategy, how can Shanon Weaver model affect this?'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Yes, interesting read.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''All good!'' |
Latest revision as of 21:04, 28 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Really good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Really good |
| Title of the Wiki | Really good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Yes |
| References | Good besides the issue you have. Let us fix it tomorrow in class. |
| Other | "Mother of all models". In general or is it within communication? |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Andreas Riposati
[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
Before diving into the article's subject, the author introduces the reader to the concept of communication when managing projects, and gives an explanation of why it is so important. Really good summary.
[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
Overall the article is coherent and transparent, as the argument the author wants to communicate is clear from the beginning. Maybe I would have the 'Limitations' chapter after the one about the application of the model within Project Management. But that's a matter of taste, I guess.
[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 author masters the langauge pretty well. Easy reading. I only found a single grammatical error in the sentence "The development of the Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication has highlighted three interrelated aspect (aspects), that can serve…."
[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 presented figures gives the reader a quick and good understanding of what is being explained in the article. Not too complex, not too simple.
[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 author states in the abstract that communication "is seen as the foundation function that integrates the areas of scope, schedule and resources". I couldn't agree more, as nothing can be accomplished in a project without a transparent and unambigous exchange of informations between the involved parts.
[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 topic is relevant and interesting to read. I would though suggest to make the chapter about the model's history shorter, as it does not really add value to the purpose of the article. I would instead focus a bit more on the apllication of the model, as there is a lack of examples for the three presented aspects.
[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
It seems like everything is as it should be. Good job.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Andreas Tuxen
[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 gives a good overview of the article. Maybe some of the first part can be used as an introduction.
[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 article has a good flow and does not contradict itself. It was an interesting historical overview, it maybe it could be shortened a little bit.
[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
Good language, did not find errors
[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 liked the models, there were only 2 but you mentioned in the top there is some problems with uploading.
[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
I think it is very relevant to be able to analyze communication. I would like to know more practical tips and implementation, in the end you mentioned communication management strategy, how can Shanon Weaver model affect this?
[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, interesting read.
[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
All good!
