Talk:Cross-cultural Management
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It is relevant and clear but I think that further information should be included'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Structure looks like ok'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Grammar and style is ok. |
| + | spelling errors: behavioUr '' | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 148: | Line 149: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There is neither figures or tables'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 160: | Line 161: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It looks like interesting but there is not enough text to analyse in depth this point'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 172: | Line 173: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There is not enough text to analyse this point'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 186: | Line 187: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Not enough. There is only one reference. Must be included mandatory references'' |
Latest revision as of 23:58, 18 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok, minor grammar mistakes.
References; missing references related to the standards
In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the structure of the article when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager, try to relate with an specific aspect of Project Management Standards.
One reference is missing, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ignasi Gironés Cádiz
[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
Yes, it describes following sections of the article and shows a flow direction
[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
According to the tittles yes
[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
Not enough text to analyze
[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
Nothing to show here
[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
It looks it would be interesting as the topic is relevant
[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
Not enough text to value
[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
Not enough text to value
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: David Moya Perrino
[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
It is relevant and clear but I think that further information should be included
[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
Structure looks like ok
[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
Grammar and style is ok. spelling errors: behavioUr
[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 is neither figures or tables
[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
It looks like interesting but there is not enough text to analyse in depth this point
[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
There is not enough text to analyse this point
[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
Not enough. There is only one reference. Must be included mandatory references
