Talk:Power, politics and stakeholder management
(→Answer 5) |
(→Answer 4) |
||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Good use of figures, nice to see you bieng creative and making them yourself ;) | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 14:23, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to focus in the power and politics aspects and avoid to write a too generic article.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonathan Nøddeskov Clifford
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
The abstract does its job :)
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 abstract defined the flow the article and the structure makes sense. You are not done with it yet but what you have done seems fine
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
Generally the grammar is fine, but there are a few areas where the language is abit off.
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
Good use of figures, nice to see you bieng creative and making them yourself ;)
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
Good use of figures, nice to see you bieng creative and making them yourself ;)
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
