Talk:Gantt Charts as a Tool for Project Management: Difference between revisions

From DTU ProjectLab
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles."
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles.
Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles.
Reviewer 3: DanielKrogh
;Formal aspects
* The structure of the article is made as expected from type 1 article.
* There is few errors in the text. Be careful to use daily speaking language like e.g. “didn’t” instead for did not.
* The sentences are well formulated are in the right length.
* All the important points in the article are illustrated in figures.
* It is easy to understand the figures and they are well explained.
* Almost every figure is referenced in the text, but where Figure 1? Make sure that each figure has its own number and are referenced in the text.
* All the figures is referenced.
* There is a lack of sub-headings which could be made easily. The figures size are proper and does not need to edited. 
;Content aspects
* It is a highly interesting topic and hence it is relevant for a practitioner.
* The length of the article is as expected.
* The flow of the article has a logical structure and have no comments on that.
* The summary fitted fine for this size of a project and highlighted the most important things.
* I do not have access to the reference list, so I cannot comment on that.
* The author has begun to make an annotated bibliography but is not finished yet.
* The overall impression is that there is no trace of plagiarism.
It is a very interesting topic, but also very relevant. If I should come with any suggestions, it would be if there could be an example of any real life cases where it went good/bad. The article is easy to read and the flow is good.

Revision as of 18:51, 22 September 2015

Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles.

Reviewer 3: DanielKrogh
Formal aspects
  • The structure of the article is made as expected from type 1 article.
  • There is few errors in the text. Be careful to use daily speaking language like e.g. “didn’t” instead for did not.
  • The sentences are well formulated are in the right length.
  • All the important points in the article are illustrated in figures.
  • It is easy to understand the figures and they are well explained.
  • Almost every figure is referenced in the text, but where Figure 1? Make sure that each figure has its own number and are referenced in the text.
  • All the figures is referenced.
  • There is a lack of sub-headings which could be made easily. The figures size are proper and does not need to edited.
Content aspects
  • It is a highly interesting topic and hence it is relevant for a practitioner.
  • The length of the article is as expected.
  • The flow of the article has a logical structure and have no comments on that.
  • The summary fitted fine for this size of a project and highlighted the most important things.
  • I do not have access to the reference list, so I cannot comment on that.
  • The author has begun to make an annotated bibliography but is not finished yet.
  • The overall impression is that there is no trace of plagiarism.

It is a very interesting topic, but also very relevant. If I should come with any suggestions, it would be if there could be an example of any real life cases where it went good/bad. The article is easy to read and the flow is good.