Talk:Scheduling: Critical path, PERT, Gantt
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| − | == | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Nanna''== |
| + | ===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=== | |
| + | ''Summary is good and clear.'' | ||
| − | '''Question 3: Is the | + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== |
| − | Only one reference has been used so far but a good one. I am sure there is more to come. | + | '''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=== | ||
| + | ''Not relevant since only the abstract has been written so far. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The grammar and style is fine and easy to read. However, be aware of inconsistency of the usage of capital letter (eg. Critical Path vs critical path)'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No figures yet.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Only abstract written.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Only abstract written.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Only one reference has been used so far but a good one. I am sure there is more to come.'' | ||
Revision as of 20:40, 18 February 2018
Text clarity Clear
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good - consider spelling out PERT and briefly introduce a one liner on what PERT is
Purpose explanation Well addressed (e.g. clear that the Project Manager is the reader), but can be improved by clearly describing the article purpose e.g. "the purpose of this article is to address issues around... by combining PERT and Gantt..." (this is an example on how it could be incorporated in the abstract already written)
Title of the Wiki Title indicates that this article will be large (see "relevance of article")
References Good reference to PMBOK, but try to incorporate more relevant references from the mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Definitely relevant, but I would be cautious with writing about two relatively large topics PERT and Gantt. This could work as long as the article addresses the necessary depth beyond a normal web search.
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nanna
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
Summary is good and clear.
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
Not relevant since only the abstract has been written so far.
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
The grammar and style is fine and easy to read. However, be aware of inconsistency of the usage of capital letter (eg. Critical Path vs critical path)
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
No figures yet.
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
Only abstract written.
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
Only abstract written.
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
Only one reference has been used so far but a good one. I am sure there is more to come.
