Talk:Gantt Charts as a Tool for Project Management
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
DanielKrogh (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* The overall impression is that there is no trace of plagiarism. | * 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. | 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. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Reviewer 2: s140767 | ||
+ | Formal aspects: | ||
+ | * The article's structure meets all requirements. | ||
+ | * The writing style is coherent, short with easy-to-understand precise sentences. | ||
+ | * Few grammatical errors (f.ex. activities that needs) | ||
+ | * All main points illustrated with an appropriate figure, but Figure 1 is missing. | ||
+ | * All figures are very understandable, but Figure 4 and 5 have too big size. | ||
+ | * References to figures provided. | ||
+ | Content aspects: | ||
+ | * The article could be interesting to a practitioner because it provides a clear overview of the tool guidance, with relevance to project management and possible pitfalls. | ||
+ | * It meets almost all requirements including: the length, academic language, sufficient sources. | ||
+ | * The number references are slightly above required (3-10) | ||
+ | * Missing annotated bibliography. | ||
+ | In general, it is a very good article! Easy to read, coherent, and gave me a very clear understanding of the tool. I had the pleasure to read this article. |
Revision as of 21:52, 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.
Reviewer 2: s140767
Formal aspects:
- The article's structure meets all requirements.
- The writing style is coherent, short with easy-to-understand precise sentences.
- Few grammatical errors (f.ex. activities that needs)
- All main points illustrated with an appropriate figure, but Figure 1 is missing.
- All figures are very understandable, but Figure 4 and 5 have too big size.
- References to figures provided.
Content aspects:
- The article could be interesting to a practitioner because it provides a clear overview of the tool guidance, with relevance to project management and possible pitfalls.
- It meets almost all requirements including: the length, academic language, sufficient sources.
- The number references are slightly above required (3-10)
- Missing annotated bibliography.
In general, it is a very good article! Easy to read, coherent, and gave me a very clear understanding of the tool. I had the pleasure to read this article.