Talk:Milestones in Project Planning
Rasmusbjerg (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sarantis Pavlidis) |
Rasmusbjerg (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There's only an abstract, so this peer review is hard to do, but, the key focus is clear. It would maybe not write so much about what a milestone is in the abstract.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Logic is pretty clear. Good build up in the abstract '' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | === | + | ===I could'nt find any errors. === |
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There are no figures or tabels yet'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''hard to determine with only the abstract'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''same as answer 5.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Annotated bibliography yet'' |
Revision as of 09:13, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | Good but could be more coherent in some parts |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Article purpose explanation | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Bjerg
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
There's only an abstract, so this peer review is hard to do, but, the key focus is clear. It would maybe not write so much about what a milestone is in the abstract.
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
Logic is pretty clear. Good build up in the abstract
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?
I could'nt find any errors.
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
There are no figures or tabels yet
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
hard to determine with only the abstract
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
same as answer 5.
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
Annotated bibliography yet
