Revision as of 07:25, 26 November 2014

Review

The introduction is good and seems to have a perfect size and gives the reader a quick overview of the method.

Formal aspects

• In general the article is well written, however there are some grammatical issues which have to be adressed. Particularly avoid writing in first person at any times, and check your : are, is and substantives, like: The context instead of context.

• The Overall flow of the article seems natural. I would suggest to define or allign the word "context" better in the explaining text since it is used many times, in relation to different topics. for example i got confused from the sentence: It describes five contexts that leaders can use for categorizing operating contexts

• The figures are meaningfull and appropriate. It would be nice if they were directly linked to the sections were the topic of the figures is explained.

• The figures also seem to free for errors, but as stated before not referenced to in the text

• Are the figures re-drawn or directly copied from others content. If they are directly from other content, consider some actions according to copyright

• The article is formatted correctly and the pictures have a nice alignment to each other. Maybe the figure at the top should be considered, so the reader reads the text instead of looking on the figure.

• Content aspects:

• Is the article interesting for a practitioner?
• Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic?
• Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to?
• Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.)
• Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread?
• Is the starting summary appropriate for the article?
• Does the article provide sufficient sources and reference material?
• Are sources and reference material of high quality? I.e., does the article mostly rely on books, journal articles, standards, and to some degree on high-quality websites, instead of “blog posts”?
• Does the article link to other relevant pages in the APPPM wiki?
• Is “own opinion” clearly differentiated from statements substantiated by literature?
• Does the article seem to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism?

PEER REVIEW 2

Mainly, I think the article is very good. the topic is appropriate for the subject, its development is clear while the necessary content is present. Therefore generally the end result is good. However some details to improve are evaluated and some suggestions are added:

FORMAL ASPECTS

• In general, the article is free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Only sometimes some small mistakes are found, for example in the singular/plural form: a very simple example that is used... are the example of...
• The article is written in an appropriate style. However sometimes too long sentences are founded. e.g: last paragraph of section 3 (Perspective on organizational theory and paradigms).
• Figures are not clear and understandable, they are too small and it is very hard (sometimes impossible) to read what is written in the figures in some sections of the article. E.g: abstract, section 1 (The Cynefin model) and section 5 (Cynefin used in projects).
• I am missing references to the figures throughout the text.
• Not sure about if the author have the copyright or right to use the figures?
• The article has the typical Wiki-features and the proper Wiki-style. Nevertheless sometimes the second person is used. From my point of view, it is better to write it as an impersonal way since it is a Wiki article. e.g: section 2: guide on leadership: if you want to become effective...

CONTENT ASPECTS

• The article is related to the content of the course especially in section 5 (Cynefin used in projects) which is not very long. It is understandable the need of an explanation of the Cynefin (in a more general way). However, in my opinion it would be beter to lengthen section 5 since it is the one related directly to the course. As I see the lenght of the article is appropriate, maybe it would be necessary to shorten other parts in order to do this.
• I really like the link: The cynefin LEGO game, I think it clarifies a lot the point of view of the article in a very good practical way.
• The starting summary is appropriate for the article but the criticism (last part) needs gouping sentences in paragraphs. Right now it seems a "bullet point format" and in a discussion I suggest to writte full text.
• Sources and reference material is enough and of high quality.

Good Job :)