Talk:Project Life Cycle in Industrial Engineering
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ugur Erman) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ugur Erman) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | ''The different points of the abstract are clear and there is a reference to one of the mandatory references (PMBOK guide). My main concern with the abstract is that it might sound a bit generic and it can be difficult to see how it is relevant for a project manager (the topic itself is relevant).'' | + | ''The different points of the abstract are clear and there is a reference to one of the mandatory references (PMBOK guide). My main concern with the abstract is that it might sound a bit generic and it can be difficult to see how it is relevant for a project manager (the topic itself is relevant and the rest of the article shows relevance).'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | ''The argument is clear and I like the flow of the article, especially in the Big Idea section where the author splits the article into theory, example, theory, example etc. '' | + | ''The argument is clear and I like the flow of the article, especially in the Big Idea section where the author splits the article into theory, example, theory, example etc. The flow also makes sure that one part builds upon the other. I find the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions.'' |
| + | |||
| + | ''One suggestion I will make is that a more is written and discussed in the '''Applications''' and '''Limitations''' sections.'' | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 50: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I find the language precise and without unnecessary fill words. I did not really find grammatical and spelling error. The only thing I will suggest is that more commas are inserted in the text as it will make it easier to read.'' |
| + | |||
| + | ''I did however notice in the section about '''Planning: Organizing and preparing''' that something can be changed. The author lists several points and in point 3 where several planning softwares are mentioned, there are three dots (...) just after OpenProj. I am not certain whether the dots are written as a way of saying etc. but if they are, I will suggest that etc. or among others (or something like that) is written.'' | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 64: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no tables but 2 figures. Both figures have decent sizes and while the text in figure 1 can be read, the text in figure 2 is blurry. I will suggest that both figures (especially figure 2) are self-explanatory, meaning that the figures should be described a bit more in depth in the text just under the figure.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 76: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is definitely relevant and it is made clear multiple times that a project manager can make use of the tools described in the article.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 84: | Line 88: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is interesting for a practitioner or academic and I think it makes several points about several things. The author has also shown critical thinking e.g. in the section where the planning software has been discussed.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 98: | Line 102: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article does properly cite and acknowledge previous work and key references are summarized at the end. One thing I will suggest is that a little more is written about the references listed in the '''Annotated Bibliography''' section.'' |
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Seyed (Habib) Bahrami''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Seyed (Habib) Bahrami''== | ||
Revision as of 21:56, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, but try avoid a too generic article, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
Try to find other relevant references and see if there are new approaches.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ugur Erman
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 different points of the abstract are clear and there is a reference to one of the mandatory references (PMBOK guide). My main concern with the abstract is that it might sound a bit generic and it can be difficult to see how it is relevant for a project manager (the topic itself is relevant and the rest of the article shows relevance).
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 argument is clear and I like the flow of the article, especially in the Big Idea section where the author splits the article into theory, example, theory, example etc. The flow also makes sure that one part builds upon the other. I find the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions.
One suggestion I will make is that a more is written and discussed in the Applications and Limitations sections.
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
I find the language precise and without unnecessary fill words. I did not really find grammatical and spelling error. The only thing I will suggest is that more commas are inserted in the text as it will make it easier to read.
I did however notice in the section about Planning: Organizing and preparing that something can be changed. The author lists several points and in point 3 where several planning softwares are mentioned, there are three dots (...) just after OpenProj. I am not certain whether the dots are written as a way of saying etc. but if they are, I will suggest that etc. or among others (or something like that) is written.
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 but 2 figures. Both figures have decent sizes and while the text in figure 1 can be read, the text in figure 2 is blurry. I will suggest that both figures (especially figure 2) are self-explanatory, meaning that the figures should be described a bit more in depth in the text just under the figure.
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
The article is definitely relevant and it is made clear multiple times that a project manager can make use of the tools described in the article.
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
The article is interesting for a practitioner or academic and I think it makes several points about several things. The author has also shown critical thinking e.g. in the section where the planning software has been discussed.
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
The article does properly cite and acknowledge previous work and key references are summarized at the end. One thing I will suggest is that a little more is written about the references listed in the Annotated Bibliography section.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Seyed (Habib) Bahrami
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
