Talk:Cost Control

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Not that clear |- |'''Language'''|| OK |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not clear what the article will ...")
 
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
|'''Other'''|| I'm not sure what you want to include in your article. You mention a lot of different methods so be careful not to make the article too broad
 
|'''Other'''|| I'm not sure what you want to include in your article. You mention a lot of different methods so be careful not to make the article too broad
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Tom Ruetgers''==
 +
===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===
 +
''Hi Thomas, first of all: Overall, I really liked your article and didn't find that much to improve. However, I will try to look on your article from a different point of view and try to find something what you might adjust.
 +
But as you know, I am in the exact same position as you are right now, so I do not know what is "right or wrong". Thus, consider this feedback more as a recommendation than a valuation.
 +
cheerio, Tom
 +
 +
Let's go: I like the summary, it is coherent and gives a nice overview over the article.
 +
''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Yes, there is a red line through this article with a clear structure. Moreover,the transition between the parts are well formulated.
 +
I do not know how much you are going to add to the example - but it seems incomplete now. And the limitations are still missing.''
 +
 +
===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 article is well writte and I only saw a very few spelling errors. In general you tend to formulate very long sentences, which makes it sometimes hard to get the essential from the sentence.
 +
Furthermore, your style of language switches sometimes during the article. A few sentences are very formal written and other are quite casual formulated. But that are just some really minor weaknesses.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Well, you have not added any picture or figures yet, but at three point you mention: ''in figure xxxxx". I think 2-3 picture, which illustrate the process and the context would upgrade your article.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Yes, by mentioning the "big idea" and later on explaining the beneftis it really gets through why cost control is relevant ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Yes it seems quite deep diving into different techniques and highlights the practitionar approach by giving an example.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''You have only 3 references yet which seems rather sparsely, so I would recommend you to find also other references. And your annotated bibliography is missing, just check the popular pages to see what is the best way to implement it. ''

Revision as of 22:58, 23 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Not that clear
Language OK
Description of the tool/theory/concept Not clear what the article will actually contain and what methods are just mentioned briefly
Purpose explanation OK
Title of the Wiki It is a broad titel and it looks like you focus on project management so you could write Cost Control in Project Management
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Other I'm not sure what you want to include in your article. You mention a lot of different methods so be careful not to make the article too broad

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Tom Ruetgers

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

Hi Thomas, first of all: Overall, I really liked your article and didn't find that much to improve. However, I will try to look on your article from a different point of view and try to find something what you might adjust. But as you know, I am in the exact same position as you are right now, so I do not know what is "right or wrong". Thus, consider this feedback more as a recommendation than a valuation. cheerio, Tom

Let's go: I like the summary, it is coherent and gives a nice overview over the article.

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

Yes, there is a red line through this article with a clear structure. Moreover,the transition between the parts are well formulated. I do not know how much you are going to add to the example - but it seems incomplete now. And the limitations are still missing.

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 article is well writte and I only saw a very few spelling errors. In general you tend to formulate very long sentences, which makes it sometimes hard to get the essential from the sentence. Furthermore, your style of language switches sometimes during the article. A few sentences are very formal written and other are quite casual formulated. But that are just some really minor weaknesses.

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

Well, you have not added any picture or figures yet, but at three point you mention: in figure xxxxx". I think 2-3 picture, which illustrate the process and the context would upgrade your article.

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

Yes, by mentioning the "big idea" and later on explaining the beneftis it really gets through why cost control is relevant

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

Yes it seems quite deep diving into different techniques and highlights the practitionar approach by giving an example.

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

You have only 3 references yet which seems rather sparsely, so I would recommend you to find also other references. And your annotated bibliography is missing, just check the popular pages to see what is the best way to implement it.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Cost_Control&oldid=66105"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox