Talk:Dependency in project management
Bartlomiej (Talk | contribs) (→Answer 5) |
Bartlomiej (Talk | contribs) (→Answer 6) |
||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | It might be if you make broaden description in the following part of the article | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 19:37, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. However the four types of dependency could be quickly listed in the abstract. |
| Article purpose explanation | Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant. |
| References | Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Bartlomiej Tyczynski
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 In the article there are clearly covered aspects mentioned in the abstract. I recommend to explain why it is important for projects.
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 there is some but I would recommend to explain it more
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 language is fine
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 two figures which show the point of the section
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 it is relevant but needs deeper explanation
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 It might be if you make broaden description in the following part of the article
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
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Bashir Isse
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 a bit too short but leads to the topic. It could be elaborated a bit more to get a better idea of the topic.
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 topic is described briefly it could be elaborated more on what types of dependencies there are. PDM is briefly explained.
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
Some small grammar errors. Check for commas etc.
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
Figures summarize key points mentioned in the topic
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
It is relevant but needs to be structured and elaborated on further
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
As mentioned above it can be if it is elaborated on further
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
Well referenced but an annotated bibliography section is missing
