Talk:Construction modularization from a lean perspective
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Lassehoier87 (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''LasseHoier87 reviewer 2''' First impression is good, especially the use of illustrations is good. The layout is thought through and seems to “guide” the reader through...") |
Lassehoier87 (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''LasseHoier87 reviewer 2''' | '''LasseHoier87 reviewer 2''' | ||
| − | First impression is good, especially the use of | + | First impression is good, especially the use of a real life case is nice. The layout is thought through and seems to “guide” the reader through the topic. However, it could be "spiced" a bit up if there were some nice pictures, illustrations or even a video. This would "catch" the reader more i think. |
Formal aspects: (Wiki article Peer Review template is used) | Formal aspects: (Wiki article Peer Review template is used) | ||
Revision as of 21:49, 22 September 2015
LasseHoier87 reviewer 2
First impression is good, especially the use of a real life case is nice. The layout is thought through and seems to “guide” the reader through the topic. However, it could be "spiced" a bit up if there were some nice pictures, illustrations or even a video. This would "catch" the reader more i think.
Formal aspects: (Wiki article Peer Review template is used)
- The article is as clearly stated in the article following a “case study”
- No gramma faults or spelling.
- Written in a fine engaging style, The sentence is too long and may be a bit too much direct style. Use more formal style.
- No illustrations at all, you mention a video on youtube why not use that one. Maybe the figures showing the building or similar.
- No figures
- No figures
- No figures
- No figures therefore no copyright issue
- I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine.
Content aspects:
- For practitioners it is a relevant article, because the topic is very relevant .
- It is not specific related to PPPM. However, the idea lean and critical path is used in project management and scheduling.
- The length of the article is fine. I don’t think it should be longer, but maybe a bit more in the “Preface” and maybe it is too basic.
- I think the overall red thread is fine and the article seems coherent.
- The starting summary is good and works fine, but I think the “preface” and “abstact” could be merged together and be more precise in terms of starting the “red thread”.
- The reference is missing.
- I find it hard to say which material has been used. There should be a clear list of reference and link into the text.
- There is no section “annotated bibliography”.
- As far as I noticed, there were no link to other APPPM wiki article. But links to websites, that is fine.
- Own opinion is clearly stated in “ reflections on practice of modularization in the construction sector”
- There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism
