Talk:Theory of Constraints
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
StephSalling (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Review given by StephSalling, review1 == The TOC method is very interesting and you are explaining it in a good and simple way. It is really a shame that the last sections ...") |
StephSalling (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==== Formal aspects ==== | ==== Formal aspects ==== | ||
| − | + | * The “method” structure is being followed very well (apart from the last parts not existing yet). | |
| − | + | * Grammar, spelling and punctuation – very good! | |
| − | + | * Sentences are short and precise, which make the article easy and engaging to read. | |
| − | + | * Adding some illustrations would improve the reading experience. | |
| − | + | * The use of different bullet point styles is good. It could be a good idea to link to some other wiki-pages. | |
==== Content aspects ==== | ==== Content aspects ==== | ||
| − | + | * I would say that the article is very interesting for a practitioner. | |
| − | + | * The topic of the article is clear and specific. | |
| − | + | * It seems that there is (going to be) a logical flow through the article, but it is of course hard to say when only half of it is written. | |
| − | + | * The starting summary of the “big idea” is sufficient and not too long. | |
| − | + | * It looks like you have attempted to put in references but not succeeded (yet), which makes it hard to judge the sources and objectivity of the article (although it seems very objective). | |
| − | + | * It could maybe be beneficial to link the article to other pages in the APPPM wiki (such as pages with the topic of LEAN?) | |
Revision as of 18:33, 22 September 2015
Review given by StephSalling, review1
The TOC method is very interesting and you are explaining it in a good and simple way. It is really a shame that the last sections are missing.
Formal aspects
- The “method” structure is being followed very well (apart from the last parts not existing yet).
- Grammar, spelling and punctuation – very good!
- Sentences are short and precise, which make the article easy and engaging to read.
- Adding some illustrations would improve the reading experience.
- The use of different bullet point styles is good. It could be a good idea to link to some other wiki-pages.
Content aspects
- I would say that the article is very interesting for a practitioner.
- The topic of the article is clear and specific.
- It seems that there is (going to be) a logical flow through the article, but it is of course hard to say when only half of it is written.
- The starting summary of the “big idea” is sufficient and not too long.
- It looks like you have attempted to put in references but not succeeded (yet), which makes it hard to judge the sources and objectivity of the article (although it seems very objective).
- It could maybe be beneficial to link the article to other pages in the APPPM wiki (such as pages with the topic of LEAN?)
