Talk:The Triple Constraint in Project Management

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good - few misspellings though |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Pur...")
 
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
|'''Other'''||  
 
|'''Other'''||  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
 +
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Shri Tejas Vedula
 +
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
 +
It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ?
 +
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
 +
Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections.
 +
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

Revision as of 11:38, 24 February 2019

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Good
Language Good - few misspellings though
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Purpose explanation Good
Title of the Wiki Good
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Good but a looks like you are missing references in the first line
Other


Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Shri Tejas Vedula 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 It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ? 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 Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections. 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

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:The_Triple_Constraint_in_Project_Management&oldid=66179"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox