Talk:Project management within volunteering organisations
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
LasseMadsen (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback by Lasse Madsen) |
LasseMadsen (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback by Lasse Madsen) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Feedback by Lasse Madsen== | == Feedback by Lasse Madsen== | ||
| − | + | '''Formal aspects''' | |
* The grammatical and spelling in the article is very fine, however some sentences can become a bit long, where I miss some "," or division into paragraphs. An example is: ''"Communication covers both the top down communication from management and the communication between the project leaders and the project team members about the tasks of the team member."'' from the section: Communication. | * The grammatical and spelling in the article is very fine, however some sentences can become a bit long, where I miss some "," or division into paragraphs. An example is: ''"Communication covers both the top down communication from management and the communication between the project leaders and the project team members about the tasks of the team member."'' from the section: Communication. | ||
| + | '''Content aspects''' | ||
* I miss references to the figures in the text. And also the context of the figures. | * I miss references to the figures in the text. And also the context of the figures. | ||
* The first thing that i noticed was the sources used to support the main arguments in the article. I miss academic sources, ie. looking into 'project management in volunteering organizations' from Journals, DTU Findit or Google Scholar or similar. '''An example could be''' to provide a literature review and then comparing it to the method used by the danish scouts. Then '''reflections and a discussion''' on how they could improve their methods. | * The first thing that i noticed was the sources used to support the main arguments in the article. I miss academic sources, ie. looking into 'project management in volunteering organizations' from Journals, DTU Findit or Google Scholar or similar. '''An example could be''' to provide a literature review and then comparing it to the method used by the danish scouts. Then '''reflections and a discussion''' on how they could improve their methods. | ||
| − | * | + | * |
| + | |||
==lol== | ==lol== | ||
*Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors? | *Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors? | ||
Revision as of 16:32, 25 November 2014
Feedback by Lasse Madsen
Formal aspects
- The grammatical and spelling in the article is very fine, however some sentences can become a bit long, where I miss some "," or division into paragraphs. An example is: "Communication covers both the top down communication from management and the communication between the project leaders and the project team members about the tasks of the team member." from the section: Communication.
Content aspects
- I miss references to the figures in the text. And also the context of the figures.
- The first thing that i noticed was the sources used to support the main arguments in the article. I miss academic sources, ie. looking into 'project management in volunteering organizations' from Journals, DTU Findit or Google Scholar or similar. An example could be to provide a literature review and then comparing it to the method used by the danish scouts. Then reflections and a discussion on how they could improve their methods.
lol
- Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long-winded, hard-to-follow mega-sentences?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Are the figures clear and understandable?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Are the figures free of formal errors (e.g. labeling of axes in diagrams)?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Are the figures referenced in the text?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Does the author have the copyright or right to use the figures (e.g. through Creative Common Non-Commercial Share Alike attribution?)
Comment:
Ansver:
- Is the article formatted properly, i.e. are the typical Wiki-features such as sub-headings, proper bullet-point list, and Wiki-style references used? Are graphics, videos etc. integrated correctly?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Is the article interesting for a practitioner?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.)
Comment:
Ansver:
- Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Is the starting summary appropriate for the article?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Does the article provide sufficient sources and reference material?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Are sources and reference material of high quality? I.e., does the article mostly rely on books, journal articles, standards, and to some degree on high-quality websites, instead of “blog posts”?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Does the article link to other relevant pages in the APPPM wiki?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Is “own opinion” clearly differentiated from statements substantiated by literature?
Comment:
Ansver:
- Does the article seem to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism?
Comment:
Ansver:
