Talk:Lean construction
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→REVIEW by Liclawio) |
(→Review - B wiki: new section) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
** Consider single/plural forms (is/are, with/without “s” on endings). | ** Consider single/plural forms (is/are, with/without “s” on endings). | ||
* Nice figures. Could perhaps be included, explained of referenced a bit more through the text. Also a bit difficult to see, whether own figures/tables or taken from elsewhere, and in that case whether they are copyright protected. | * Nice figures. Could perhaps be included, explained of referenced a bit more through the text. Also a bit difficult to see, whether own figures/tables or taken from elsewhere, and in that case whether they are copyright protected. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Review - B wiki == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Formal aspects: | ||
| + | *Some grammatical errors, for example: | ||
| + | **Verbs in singular and plural: “These two interpretations are…”, “they together strive…”, “there are several…” | ||
| + | **Word order: “productivity spent hours” | ||
| + | **Past participles for irregular verbs: “spent”, “shown” | ||
| + | **Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “does not recognize” | ||
| + | *Some repetition can be avoided by using pronouns | ||
| + | *In general, not too long sentences that help to follow what you are saying | ||
| + | *You used very nice illustrations to explain the concept. Also useful summary tables | ||
| + | *References are appropriately used | ||
| + | *At the end of some sections you put two bullet points without introducing them before. Maybe you still have to work on them | ||
| + | |||
| + | Concept aspects: | ||
| + | *The abstract, in general, is good. You get into the topic quite fast and this is nice for understanding what is all about. | ||
| + | *The topic is interesting and is related to the subject | ||
| + | *Really nice structure of the article | ||
| + | *The length is appropriate for this kind of topic (aprox. 3000 words) | ||
| + | *Many references are good to see that the sources are reliable | ||
| + | *The text doesn’t seem to be copied and pasted. When necessary, you used inverted commas (that’s ok) | ||
Revision as of 17:55, 25 November 2014
REVIEW by Liclawio
- In general, a very nice setup of wikipage. Seems like proper use of the wiki platform.
- Very good overview article of the theory on the field, and following the setup more or less to the letter
- Really good length of article, especially considering last parts still missing at current time.
- Nice structure overview. Concise sentences and paragraphs making it easy to read though the article.
- In general good language. However, you should consider a quick spell check in Word or other software also including grammar check (fx. customer). Also spell check figures and tables
- Consider whether the article should be written in UK or US English and/or look through spelling. Both words with ou and only o in text (fx. labour/behaviors). Also remember use of “z” vs “s” when considering UK vs US
- Consider single/plural forms (is/are, with/without “s” on endings).
- Nice figures. Could perhaps be included, explained of referenced a bit more through the text. Also a bit difficult to see, whether own figures/tables or taken from elsewhere, and in that case whether they are copyright protected.
Review - B wiki
Formal aspects:
- Some grammatical errors, for example:
- Verbs in singular and plural: “These two interpretations are…”, “they together strive…”, “there are several…”
- Word order: “productivity spent hours”
- Past participles for irregular verbs: “spent”, “shown”
- Not appropriate use of auxiliary verbs: “does not recognize”
- Some repetition can be avoided by using pronouns
- In general, not too long sentences that help to follow what you are saying
- You used very nice illustrations to explain the concept. Also useful summary tables
- References are appropriately used
- At the end of some sections you put two bullet points without introducing them before. Maybe you still have to work on them
Concept aspects:
- The abstract, in general, is good. You get into the topic quite fast and this is nice for understanding what is all about.
- The topic is interesting and is related to the subject
- Really nice structure of the article
- The length is appropriate for this kind of topic (aprox. 3000 words)
- Many references are good to see that the sources are reliable
- The text doesn’t seem to be copied and pasted. When necessary, you used inverted commas (that’s ok)
