Talk:Agile Project Management with SCRUM

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article do...")
 
Line 8: Line 8:
 
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate the article based in the sections recomended
 
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate the article based in the sections recomended
 
in the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and check the Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.
 
in the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and check the Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Cetin Arslan ==
 +
 +
===Question 1===
 +
 +
Quality of the summary:
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
Firstly, there are some minor spelling errors all over the text, which can be easily improved e.g. includes instead include or "new product development Game".
 +
 +
===Question 2===
 +
 +
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===
 +
 +
 +
===Question 3===
 +
 +
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===
 +
 +
 +
===Question 4===
 +
 +
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===
 +
 +
 +
===Question 5===
 +
 +
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===
 +
 +
 +
 +
===Question 6===
 +
 +
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===
 +
 +
 +
===Question 7===
 +
 +
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===

Revision as of 22:44, 19 February 2018

Contents

Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards.

In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate the article based in the sections recomended in the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and check the Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Cetin Arslan

Question 1

Quality of the summary:

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Firstly, there are some minor spelling errors all over the text, which can be easily improved e.g. includes instead include or "new product development Game".

Question 2

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

Question 3

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

Question 4

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

Question 5

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

Question 6

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

Question 7

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

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Agile_Project_Management_with_SCRUM&oldid=51855"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox