Talk:Project Sponsorship
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini) |
(→Answer 2) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | + | ==Answer 2== | |
| − | I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents. | + | I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents. |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 17:29, 24 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is good. However, it can be more concise and coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | This needs to be elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
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? Mostly
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
I would outline the purpose of the article and I would introduce a brief definition of project sponsorship to better understand the following.
Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly
Does one part build upon the other? Mostly
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 2
I would suggest to make the article more fluent in contents.
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?
Answer 3
I would suggest to make some sentences shorter, in order to make easier the understanding.
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
I would add some figures to support the ideas.
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?
Answer 5
I would develop the missing chapter and I would add the limitation of project sponsorship.
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
I would add some tools that are used in dealing with project sponsorship
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 summarise the content of each reference.
