Talk:Project Charter
Ragnhildur (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Ragnhildur''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the...") |
Ragnhildur (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ragnhildur) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Gives a general understanding of the topic. I would suggest to connect the paragraphs better together, but like you write in the beginning, this section is not ready.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is still in progress so I'm sure it will change. As for now I feel like something about the application of the concept is missing though it may be hard for this topic. At least more information about how it's used, after it has been developed. I would like to read more about why to use project charter and the benefits of using it. You address all of this in the introduction so maybe it will be there in the final hand in. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and have the introduction more general going into more detail in later sections. Remember to have a logical flow between sections in the end.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The overall text is understandable and easy to read. There are minor spelling and grammatical errors, so I would recommend you, or get somebody else you know, to read it over before the final hand it.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no tables or figures yet.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very relevant subject and made very clear why project managers should use this method but you could elaborate further on how it is relevant (which is still in progress).'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''As for now there is not enough written to be able to answer this question.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There is no annotated bibliography or references yet, it's still in progress. The PMBOK addresses this subject very well in chapter 4 so I think you could look at that if you haven't already. '' |
Revision as of 14:22, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ragnhildur
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?
Answer 1
Gives a general understanding of the topic. I would suggest to connect the paragraphs better together, but like you write in the beginning, this section is not ready.
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?
Answer 2
The article is still in progress so I'm sure it will change. As for now I feel like something about the application of the concept is missing though it may be hard for this topic. At least more information about how it's used, after it has been developed. I would like to read more about why to use project charter and the benefits of using it. You address all of this in the introduction so maybe it will be there in the final hand in. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and have the introduction more general going into more detail in later sections. Remember to have a logical flow between sections in the end.
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?
Answer 3
The overall text is understandable and easy to read. There are minor spelling and grammatical errors, so I would recommend you, or get somebody else you know, to read it over before the final hand it.
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?
Answer 4
There are no tables or figures yet.
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?
Answer 5
Very relevant subject and made very clear why project managers should use this method but you could elaborate further on how it is relevant (which is still in progress).
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?
Answer 6
As for now there is not enough written to be able to answer this question.
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?
Answer 7
There is no annotated bibliography or references yet, it's still in progress. The PMBOK addresses this subject very well in chapter 4 so I think you could look at that if you haven't already.
