Talk:Governance of Project Management

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good but it can be more coherent in some of the parts |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Explana...")
 
(→‎Feedback on Abstract)
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Kevin Lim''==
 +
===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===
 +
Yes, the summary gives you a good insight of what the article is about and furthermore it is going a bit into the topic itself already, giving you a taste of what you are going to read about more.
 +
 +
I think the references needs to be placed rightly, it is probably still under the work though.
 +
 +
 +
===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 flow of the article is fine, it is taking a topic at a time, and it is going through the relevance of the different things in order to understand the concept. The argumentation is clear and flow is fine, there are also a consistency throughout it all.
 +
 +
It is free of contradictions too, but I think the article is not fully done, so there are parts missing.
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Minor grammatical errors, and spelling errors are majority been avoided, but the controls whether in word or here in wiki.
 +
 +
As I still think, there are generally not really fill words, but again, it depends on how you are good a describing something, you can think of it as a fill words, when in reality it is not. But there are no filling as such.
 +
 +
For the grammar and spelling, just a quick run through will be fine, to check for them again.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
They are very easy to understand, but the quality is a bit bad, without clicking on them, it is a bit hard to read them, but when they are clicked it is easy to read them, no problems there.
 +
 +
They do summarize the key points, it gives a good overview and understanding because of the figures.
 +
 +
Try to fix the quality of possible and maybe a bit bigger would be nice, without having to click on them.
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
As I said earlier there are some holes in the article, so it is a bit hard to define it one or the other, but if I absolutely must, I think it is more of a academic relevance, it is hard to actually try to implement it, based on what this article is describing the tools.
 +
 +
Again, I think the relevance is also depending on the researcher, but I would definitely think it is clear how it is relevant in project management.
 +
 +
Try to fill out the holes, then maybe things will be more clear if it is relevant and if it is practical or academical.
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Academic, because as I mentioned at the question before. But again it is a bit hard because of the missing texts.
 +
 +
I do not think it is a significant contribution at all, because of the missing holes. But if it is filled out, then it is no doubt a contribution, but not beyond at all.
 +
 +
You should have finish the work by the deadline, because it is hard to give a whole feedback at this point.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
It is not filled out yet, so I cannot comment on this.

Revision as of 13:29, 24 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract

Text clarity Good but it can be more coherent in some of the parts
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Explanation of the purpose of the article Good
Relevance to curriculum Make sure you keep it within project, program or portfolio and not about organizational management/theory.
References Good

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kevin Lim

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

Yes, the summary gives you a good insight of what the article is about and furthermore it is going a bit into the topic itself already, giving you a taste of what you are going to read about more.

I think the references needs to be placed rightly, it is probably still under the work though.


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 flow of the article is fine, it is taking a topic at a time, and it is going through the relevance of the different things in order to understand the concept. The argumentation is clear and flow is fine, there are also a consistency throughout it all.

It is free of contradictions too, but I think the article is not fully done, so there are parts missing.


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

Minor grammatical errors, and spelling errors are majority been avoided, but the controls whether in word or here in wiki.

As I still think, there are generally not really fill words, but again, it depends on how you are good a describing something, you can think of it as a fill words, when in reality it is not. But there are no filling as such.

For the grammar and spelling, just a quick run through will be fine, to check for them again.

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

They are very easy to understand, but the quality is a bit bad, without clicking on them, it is a bit hard to read them, but when they are clicked it is easy to read them, no problems there.

They do summarize the key points, it gives a good overview and understanding because of the figures.

Try to fix the quality of possible and maybe a bit bigger would be nice, without having to click on them.


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

As I said earlier there are some holes in the article, so it is a bit hard to define it one or the other, but if I absolutely must, I think it is more of a academic relevance, it is hard to actually try to implement it, based on what this article is describing the tools.

Again, I think the relevance is also depending on the researcher, but I would definitely think it is clear how it is relevant in project management.

Try to fill out the holes, then maybe things will be more clear if it is relevant and if it is practical or academical.


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

Academic, because as I mentioned at the question before. But again it is a bit hard because of the missing texts.

I do not think it is a significant contribution at all, because of the missing holes. But if it is filled out, then it is no doubt a contribution, but not beyond at all.

You should have finish the work by the deadline, because it is hard to give a whole feedback at this point.

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

It is not filled out yet, so I cannot comment on this.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Governance_of_Project_Management&oldid=66197"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox