Talk:Managing Successful Programmes (MSP)
(→Abstract Feedback) |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search | <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018) | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:''' | ||
| + | The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?''' | ||
| + | • Does the article provide hands on guidance? Can the reader (at least prototypically) apply | ||
| + | the method after reading the article? | ||
| + | • 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? | ||
| + | • Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or | ||
| + | contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | • Formal aspects: | ||
| + | ▪ Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear and provide meaningful support? | ||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | ▪ 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? | ||
| + | ▪ Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the | ||
| + | language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?''' | ||
| + | Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-) | ||
Revision as of 19:32, 18 February 2018
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Good
Language Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the he main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/mandatory list of references to add credibility. Also, is it true that all organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?
Purpose explanation Good and sets up the reader's expectations well
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Program Manager etc?
- What will the reader get out of this?
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search
==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)
Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?: The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated.
Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?
• Does the article provide hands on guidance? Can the reader (at least prototypically) apply
the method after reading the article?
• 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?
• Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or
contribution of the article clear?
• Formal aspects:
▪ Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear and provide meaningful support?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
▪ 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?
▪ Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the
language precise without unnecessary fill words?
Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible? Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)
