Talk:Due Diligence on Wind Farm Assets
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
− | + | I would put some words in bold, in this way the reading is easier. | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
− | I would | + | I would put more emphasis in the relation between the Due Diligence and the project management. |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== |
Revision as of 16:35, 24 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
Article purpose explanation | Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted. |
Relevance to curriculum | Irrelevant at this point. A clear link to project/program/portfolio management still needs to be made (e.g. project business case etc). This article shouldn't focus on investment management. |
References | Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini
Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
I would put some words in bold, in this way the reading is easier.
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? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 2
I would put more emphasis in the relation between the Due Diligence and the project management.
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
It appears to me that there are some repetitions and in one sentence the tenses don't match.
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?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 4
I would add some more figures
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? yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 5
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? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 6
Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 7
I would add a linked references instead of the numbers.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
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