Talk:Business Case: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Feedback to first version of Wiki article== | ==Feedback to first version of Wiki article== | ||
*Grammar and spelling: Is the text readable and free of formal errors? | *'''Grammar and spelling: Is the text readable and free of formal errors?''' | ||
*Structure and logical flow: Is every part of the article informative and necessary to communicate the core message? What do you like? What should be improved, and how? | ** | ||
*Content: Is the article convincing? Is it complete? Is it relevant an “deep” enough? What parts do you like? What parts need to be improved? | *'''Structure and logical flow: Is every part of the article informative and necessary to communicate the core message? What do you like? What should be improved, and how?''' | ||
** | |||
*'''Content: Is the article convincing? Is it complete? Is it relevant an “deep” enough? What parts do you like? What parts need to be improved?''' | |||
** | |||
Revision as of 10:43, 17 February 2018
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, consider elaborating the tools for making a business case mentioned in the abstract
Purpose explanation Good, but consider who your reader is - is the project manager? project sponsor?
References Good
Relevance of article Very relevant. Perhaps consider, when writing the article, expanding on what the governance is around who decides/approves a business case in a project management organization?
Feedback to first version of Wiki article
- Grammar and spelling: Is the text readable and free of formal errors?
- Structure and logical flow: Is every part of the article informative and necessary to communicate the core message? What do you like? What should be improved, and how?
- Content: Is the article convincing? Is it complete? Is it relevant an “deep” enough? What parts do you like? What parts need to be improved?