Talk:Value to whom?
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Francisco Almirudis) |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | ' | + | |
| + | Abstract is good, I would divide it into different paragraphs just so it's easier to read. | ||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 39: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Good flow and easy to follow. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 46: | Line 48: | ||
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | |||
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| Line 51: | Line 54: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | ' | + | |
| + | I couldn't find any grammatical mistake. | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 63: | Line 67: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Figures are there and they are easy to understand, just make sure to give credit to the creators. | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 75: | Line 80: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Relevant indeed! I like it a lot | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 87: | Line 93: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | To practicioners definitely. | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 101: | Line 108: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | |||
| + | Nice bibliography that is already compliant with the requirements, just make sure to add the sources of the pictures and yo uare good to go! | ||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Federica Menti''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Federica Menti''== | ||
Latest revision as of 01:38, 26 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. However, could you even scope the article even more? There's quite a few concepts introduced here. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good references. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Francisco Almirudis
[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
Abstract is good, I would divide it into different paragraphs just so it's easier to read.
[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
Good flow and easy to follow.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
I couldn't find any grammatical mistake.
[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
Figures are there and they are easy to understand, just make sure to give credit to the creators.
[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
Relevant indeed! I like it a lot
[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
To practicioners definitely.
[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
Nice bibliography that is already compliant with the requirements, just make sure to add the sources of the pictures and yo uare good to go!
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Federica Menti
[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
Yes, the summary is quite clear. Maybe to add more blank space (i.e.wrap lines to help readers)
[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 the argument is clear and there is logical flow.
[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
Yes, there no grammatical errors and the language is precise. However I suggest the following improvements: Introduction part: avoid expression " we can see", repetition of "but" in line 1 and 2 Success of a project: create a dot list to help the reader and maybe create a subsection for "But, who is the main responsible for this value?" part
[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
Yes figures are clear
[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
Yes in the article is stated why it is relevant.
[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
Yes. Nothing to improve
[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
The bibliography is well done
