Talk:Crisis management
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Tianhao Chen''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of t...") |
|||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
Good enough. Nice annotated bibliography. Suitable references | Good enough. Nice annotated bibliography. Suitable references | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Thomas Boel''== | ||
| + | ===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 abstract is very clear and motivating, BUT I don't think it reflects on the content of your article. In your article, you write a lot about how to handle crises, and in the abstract your talk about why crisis management is importent. | ||
| + | You can easily fix this by just adding a small description of the rest of the content 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=== | ||
| + | The article is very clear and comprehensive and there are no logical flaws in my view. It builds nicely up by firstly giving motivation and overview and the going in depth with the most preferred method of crisis management. Well done. | ||
| + | If I have to suggest iprovement, it would be to end with either conclusion or example/application from a real-life project. But I guess the article is not 100% done yet, so it can still be added. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | 'The writing is, at first glance, flawless. I did not find spelling or grammar mistakes and the language is proficient and articulate. | ||
| + | However, I am not a native speaker or expert in the English language, so I would suggest to anyone to use chrome extension Grammarly. It really helps to spot and correct whatever few errors there might be. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | 'Only one figure is visible, but it seems there are made boxes for more figures, but they did not show the picture. | ||
| + | The figure that is shows is good, relevant and comprehensive. It summarizes the section it is included in. | ||
| + | Suggestion: solve the problem with the other 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? | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | The article about crisis management is very relevant. As stated, crises often occur, and when they do the management better be prepared, or they will be a lot worse off. This is also made clear in the article. So, I actually do not have a suggestion for improvement for this post. It is all in excellent shape. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 found the article interesting to read, and I think I would perhaps read it again some time. if I was to make a crisis management plan. It reflects on some of the current literature, so I am not too sure, whether it adds anything new to the table, that is not already available from other sources. However, the article is well written and comprehensive, so, therefore, it is a preferable tool compared to finding the same info from extensive research of other sources. Good job. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Yes, it does properly cite and acknowledge previous work, and yes, it does briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article. So that is as it should be. | ||
| + | I don't see either data or opinion in this article - I mean it is a description of a tool that does not application data from examples. So it is not really missing, in my opinion, unless you wanted to add in a few relevant examples, which I strongly suggest. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:17, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Tianhao Chen
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The summary mainly talks about what the crisis management is and how important it is, but I think it would be better if you add a short introduction about the structure of this article in the abstract.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
Yes, it is very clear for the structure. It covers all the brief things in the crisis management. But there is a problem that there is only one core part(part 3). I think it would be better if you add some more chapters such as limitation, application.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Very good writing
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
There is only one figure visible but with not very clear word on it. Maybe there are some problem of uploading pics because I could see there are some place missing the pics.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
This article only talks about the theoretical method to do the crisis management. I think it is not that practical. If you add somethings for the application, it would be perfect.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
It is a board topic. And the clear explanation on the structure and instruction of crisis management. If you can connect these stages of management with the real project, it would be super nice.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Good enough. Nice annotated bibliography. Suitable references
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Thomas Boel
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The abstract is very clear and motivating, BUT I don't think it reflects on the content of your article. In your article, you write a lot about how to handle crises, and in the abstract your talk about why crisis management is importent. You can easily fix this by just adding a small description of the rest of the content in the abstract.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The article is very clear and comprehensive and there are no logical flaws in my view. It builds nicely up by firstly giving motivation and overview and the going in depth with the most preferred method of crisis management. Well done. If I have to suggest iprovement, it would be to end with either conclusion or example/application from a real-life project. But I guess the article is not 100% done yet, so it can still be added.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
'The writing is, at first glance, flawless. I did not find spelling or grammar mistakes and the language is proficient and articulate. However, I am not a native speaker or expert in the English language, so I would suggest to anyone to use chrome extension Grammarly. It really helps to spot and correct whatever few errors there might be.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
'Only one figure is visible, but it seems there are made boxes for more figures, but they did not show the picture. The figure that is shows is good, relevant and comprehensive. It summarizes the section it is included in. Suggestion: solve the problem with the other figures.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
The article about crisis management is very relevant. As stated, crises often occur, and when they do the management better be prepared, or they will be a lot worse off. This is also made clear in the article. So, I actually do not have a suggestion for improvement for this post. It is all in excellent shape.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
I found the article interesting to read, and I think I would perhaps read it again some time. if I was to make a crisis management plan. It reflects on some of the current literature, so I am not too sure, whether it adds anything new to the table, that is not already available from other sources. However, the article is well written and comprehensive, so, therefore, it is a preferable tool compared to finding the same info from extensive research of other sources. Good job.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Yes, it does properly cite and acknowledge previous work, and yes, it does briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article. So that is as it should be. I don't see either data or opinion in this article - I mean it is a description of a tool that does not application data from examples. So it is not really missing, in my opinion, unless you wanted to add in a few relevant examples, which I strongly suggest.
