Talk:Roles and responsibilities
(→Question 3 · TEXT) |
(→Question 3 · TEXT) |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
Revision as of 00:24, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity The text sounds coherent
Language Can be improved. I did not understand this for example: "Project manager and team with structure, processes, models and tools represent the core from which the project grows."
Description of the tool/theory/concept OK
Purpose explanation Missing - What is the purpose of the article? What aspect of project management are you trying to address? Who is your reader? Are you focusing on a particular industry e.g. construction? How is this relevant for the project manager?
Title of the Wiki Can be more specific - this depends on the focus of your article
References Good reference to PMBOK. Be cautious when addressing websites. I would never reference blogs. Use the PMI (Project Management Institute) site instead for example.
General Remember when writing the article, that it needs to be in the right depth and not too generic
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ioannis Papadantonakis
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?
The abstract presents with sufficient clarity the key points of the article. Moreover, it clearly defines the reader audience of the article. The field of application is a bit generic.
Suggestion: Focus on a particular industrial sector for your analysis.
Answer 1
Answer here
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
To begin with, the argument is quite unambiguous. Furthermore, the article is characterised by a logical flow so far. Specifically, it begins with the cite of the definitions that are associated with the topic and continues with mentioning the importance of the specific model. Consequently, an extensive description of the different kinds of team structures is presented. You skipped the selection of a particular project team structure that will be analyzed. Moreover, a decent sequence can be observed among the individual parts. Finally, the article is really consistent in its arguments and free of contradictions.
Suggestion: Choose a specific project team structure through which you can analyze the particular roles and responsibilities.
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
