Talk:Project Schedule development
Oliver.amb (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Oliver Adam Mølskov Bech''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or cont...") |
Oliver.amb (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Oliver Adam Mølskov Bech) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The abstract itself is missing however I have taken the section called 2. Motivation into account when answering your summary. The motivation states some of the reasons as to why Project Schedule Development is an important management concept however it does not concisely describe the key focus of the article and/or what the article will contribute in terms of explaining the concept.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 17:47, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Oliver Adam Mølskov Bech
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
The abstract itself is missing however I have taken the section called 2. Motivation into account when answering your summary. The motivation states some of the reasons as to why Project Schedule Development is an important management concept however it does not concisely describe the key focus of the article and/or what the article will contribute in terms of explaining the concept.
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
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
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
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
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
