Talk:Agile One Page Project Management
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Theodoros Seremetakis) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Theodoros Seremetakis) |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The presented figures gives the reader a quick and good understanding of what is being explained in the article. Not too complex, not too simple.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | '''' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The topic is relevant and interesting to read'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It seems like everything is as it should be. Good job.'' |
Revision as of 18:04, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is okay, however there's a few grammatical errors. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. However, a short description of "Agile One Page Project Management" would be beneficial. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. However, do you have permission to mention "LEO Pharma A/S" in your article? Best practice is just to mention "based on a pharmaceutical company/pharmaceutical industry." |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good references. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Theodoros Seremetakis
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
Before diving into the article's subject, the author introduces the reader to the concept, really good summary
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
Overall the article is coherent and transparent.
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 author masters the langauge pretty well. Easy reading.
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 presented figures gives the reader a quick and good understanding of what is being explained in the article. Not too complex, not too simple.
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
'
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 topic is relevant and interesting to read
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
It seems like everything is as it should be. Good job.
