Talk:The Framework of Project Governance
(→Answer 1) |
(→Answer 1) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | I think the abstract is good and finds the key focus. | + | I think the abstract is good and finds the key focus. The structure is good and easy to follow. |
| − | + | Maby you could add some of the conclusions or advantages of Project Governance to the abstract. | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 12:49, 17 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow.
Purpose explanation Well addressed, however what is the main theme of the article? Is it the bottom-up approach? Needs further clarification
References Try to add appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Very relevant and good structure
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonas
Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
I think the abstract is good and finds the key focus. The structure is good and easy to follow. Maby you could add some of the conclusions or advantages of Project Governance to the abstract.
Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 2
Answer here
Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 3
Answer here
Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 4
Answer here
Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 5
Answer here
Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 6
Answer here
Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 7
Answer here
