Talk:Belbin's Team Roles

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Needs to be more elaborated |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of th...")
 
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Amani Alabdullah''==
 +
===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===
 +
Not added yet
 +
 +
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 +
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
 +
 +
Is the argument clear? Yes
 +
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
 +
 +
Does one part build upon the other? Somehow
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? -
 +
 +
 +
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 +
'''Grammar and style:'''
 +
 +
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?-
 +
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear? yes
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? -
 +
 +
 +
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 +
'''Interest and relevance:'''
 +
 +
Is the article of high practical and/or academic relevance? Yes
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? 
 +
 +
 +
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 +
'''Depth of treatment:'''
 +
 +
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
 +
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?-
 +
 +
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?-
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.

Revision as of 22:33, 25 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract

Text clarity Good.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Needs to be more elaborated
Explanation of the purpose of the article The purpose of the article is not quite clear
Relevance to curriculum The topic is relevant but make sure you link it with project management and state how should it contribute/be relevant. Also, it is lacking a bit of context
References Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Amani Alabdullah

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

Not added yet

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Somehow

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? yes

What would you suggest to improve? -


Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?-


Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? yes

What would you suggest to improve? -


Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and/or academic relevance? Yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?


Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.

What would you suggest to improve?-


Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?-

What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Belbin%27s_Team_Roles&oldid=67018"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox