Talk:Risk identification methods

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| OK but could be a bit more clear |- |'''...")
 
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
|'''Other'''|| Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management.
 
|'''Other'''|| Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management.
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Alberto Tognon==
 +
===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 summary is pretty general but it gives some insights about the further development of the article. I would anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just a bit more deep) and on more specific purposes of the article.
 +
 +
===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 only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
There are some minors grammatical aspects that could be improved.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
 +
 +
===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 only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
 +
 +
===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 only abstract does not give enough information 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===
 +
 +
The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the need to add more references.

Revision as of 21:46, 25 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Good
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept OK but could be a bit more clear
Purpose explanation Good but you switch from focusing on risks in projects to focus on programs afterwards its a bit confusing. Is the article about both or one of them?
Title of the Wiki Good but could also be Risk Identification Methods in Project Management if that's your focus
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

If you are in doubt about how to make them in the wiki then have a look at the "Help" function in the side of the page or look at previous years articles. If you click "edit" in one of the old ones you can see how it is done but please do not change anything.

Other Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon

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 summary is pretty general but it gives some insights about the further development of the article. I would anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just a bit more deep) and on more specific purposes of the article.

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 only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

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

There are some minors grammatical aspects that could be improved.

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

The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

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 only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.

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 only abstract does not give enough information 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

The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the need to add more references.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Risk_identification_methods&oldid=66967"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox