Talk:Management of Project Change
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==s150799 reviewer nr.1== | ==s150799 reviewer nr.1== | ||
| − | ==Overall impression:== | + | ===Overall impression:=== |
* The article has a good structure, correct use of the Wiki-style. There is a good balance of the different topics. | * The article has a good structure, correct use of the Wiki-style. There is a good balance of the different topics. | ||
* Good use of examples, it makes it easy to understand the concept. | * Good use of examples, it makes it easy to understand the concept. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* “Management of Project Change” is an interesting project management tool, and the text explain it so it is easily understood. | * “Management of Project Change” is an interesting project management tool, and the text explain it so it is easily understood. | ||
| − | ==Improvement areas: == | + | ===Improvement areas: === |
* There are some grammatical errors. Mostly spelling and some sentences that are missing words like “the, are, is”. To increase the flow for the reader this should be corrected. For example :”… very difficult thing master.,” where “to” is missing to complete the sentence. | * There are some grammatical errors. Mostly spelling and some sentences that are missing words like “the, are, is”. To increase the flow for the reader this should be corrected. For example :”… very difficult thing master.,” where “to” is missing to complete the sentence. | ||
*To me the reference list is not easy to understand, but it is most likely not completed. | *To me the reference list is not easy to understand, but it is most likely not completed. | ||
*There is no annotated bibliography or description of limitation of this tool before the conclusion. | *There is no annotated bibliography or description of limitation of this tool before the conclusion. | ||
| − | ==Suggestion of improvement:== | + | ===Suggestion of improvement:=== |
*The reference list should maintain name of the author, the name of the page the article is collected and sometimes the date it is read. This is so that it is easier to quickly see where the source is from, and if it is legit. | *The reference list should maintain name of the author, the name of the page the article is collected and sometimes the date it is read. This is so that it is easier to quickly see where the source is from, and if it is legit. | ||
*The pictures are a little small; the text can be hard to read. So adjusting them up would improve the quality. | *The pictures are a little small; the text can be hard to read. So adjusting them up would improve the quality. | ||
*I would suggest to make a own section about limitation of the tool, so that there is more discussion and not just explanation of theories. | *I would suggest to make a own section about limitation of the tool, so that there is more discussion and not just explanation of theories. | ||
Revision as of 19:00, 22 September 2015
Mette: I like your idea. It seems like you want to look at different theories, model and methods in your article for have to manage project changes, but maybe you should consider to just focus on one or two model/method. This way it is possible to go deeper with the chosen model(s) and to discuss the differens between the use of the models.
Contents |
s150799 reviewer nr.1
Overall impression:
- The article has a good structure, correct use of the Wiki-style. There is a good balance of the different topics.
- Good use of examples, it makes it easy to understand the concept.
- Good explanation too graphical illustration in the text, this gives a good overall appearance and is highly effective.
- “Management of Project Change” is an interesting project management tool, and the text explain it so it is easily understood.
Improvement areas:
- There are some grammatical errors. Mostly spelling and some sentences that are missing words like “the, are, is”. To increase the flow for the reader this should be corrected. For example :”… very difficult thing master.,” where “to” is missing to complete the sentence.
- To me the reference list is not easy to understand, but it is most likely not completed.
- There is no annotated bibliography or description of limitation of this tool before the conclusion.
Suggestion of improvement:
- The reference list should maintain name of the author, the name of the page the article is collected and sometimes the date it is read. This is so that it is easier to quickly see where the source is from, and if it is legit.
- The pictures are a little small; the text can be hard to read. So adjusting them up would improve the quality.
- I would suggest to make a own section about limitation of the tool, so that there is more discussion and not just explanation of theories.
