Talk:What is SWOT
(→Feedback on Abstract:) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sarantis Pavlidis) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Keegan van Kooten''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | Your abstract is really good, until the first reference '(1)'. I don't think you should have references in your abstract, as an abstract should be what the article will be about, and should explain terms or ideas. I also think the everything about where the framework came from (Kurt Lewis) should be under a different section. Possible under 'A brief history of SWOT' as the abstract should be about the whole article, and again, shouldn't have explanations. Maybe also add a sentence or two about what angle your article will try tackle within the field of a SWOT analysis. |
| + | |||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 47: | Line 48: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | You have clearly done your research, and know a lot about the topic. Try, when you're writing, to make your sentences shorter, this will help the argumentation of each section. I think there is a good flow throughout the article, and the different sections fit well together. You don't seem to have any major contradictions, and all ideas are developed naturally (sometimes, a little too well. Try shorten some of the explanations down - it would help make your article more to the point. |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 59: | Line 60: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | There are a few grammatical errors, and wrong use of the first and second person: |
| + | |||
| + | 'Let us look'.. -> try write this as 'these factors are...' | ||
| + | 'Now that we know what SWOT' -> this is very personal, and you should rather use more scientific language such as: '...knowing that a SWOT is... then...' | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 71: | Line 75: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Your SWOT figure is very clear, good choice. It really does help understanding the tool. The only thing now is to add the reference to your text (which I know you are aware that you need to do). | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 83: | Line 87: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | The article is clear which helps make it interesting. It would be very helpful for people who need to use the tool so in that way it is academically relevant. I do think you need to add a sentence or section about what your specific angle is for the use of/understanding of a SWOT (something more like you section 'Critical success factors'). |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 95: | Line 99: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | The article is very interesting yes, and it is clear you are interested in the topic. If you can expand on the Critical success factors, that would help your article add more value to other people (I think its a very interesting section, where a lot of the value from your article comes from). | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 109: | Line 113: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | You have references, but you have written them yourself. You should try use the wiki citing of <ref> ..... </ref> (try look it up on the wiki help) - using this feature will add all your references at the end of your article automatically. Otherwise, you use references well in your article. |
| + | |||
| + | Also you write 'Volume 2, by Ryan Watkin and Doug Leigh (p.131)' after a reference in your text. This is too much info to include in the text itself, and should rather be in the reference list at the end of the article. Rather put the reference after “Handbook of Improving performance in the Workplace”. | ||
Revision as of 18:19, 24 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good - few misspellings and avoid writing "We" |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | I can see that you relate SWOT to project management so remember to mention it in the abstract too |
| Title of the Wiki | Remember the question mark -> What is SWOT? but you could also call it The use of SWOT in Project Management if thats your focus |
| 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
If you are in doubt about how to make them in the wiki then have a look at the "Help" function in the side of the page or look at previous years articles. If you click "edit" in one of the old ones you can see how it is done but please do not change anything. |
| Other |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Keegan van Kooten
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
Your abstract is really good, until the first reference '(1)'. I don't think you should have references in your abstract, as an abstract should be what the article will be about, and should explain terms or ideas. I also think the everything about where the framework came from (Kurt Lewis) should be under a different section. Possible under 'A brief history of SWOT' as the abstract should be about the whole article, and again, shouldn't have explanations. Maybe also add a sentence or two about what angle your article will try tackle within the field of a SWOT analysis.
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
You have clearly done your research, and know a lot about the topic. Try, when you're writing, to make your sentences shorter, this will help the argumentation of each section. I think there is a good flow throughout the article, and the different sections fit well together. You don't seem to have any major contradictions, and all ideas are developed naturally (sometimes, a little too well. Try shorten some of the explanations down - it would help make your article more to the point.
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
There are a few grammatical errors, and wrong use of the first and second person:
'Let us look'.. -> try write this as 'these factors are...' 'Now that we know what SWOT' -> this is very personal, and you should rather use more scientific language such as: '...knowing that a SWOT is... then...'
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
Your SWOT figure is very clear, good choice. It really does help understanding the tool. The only thing now is to add the reference to your text (which I know you are aware that you need to do).
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
The article is clear which helps make it interesting. It would be very helpful for people who need to use the tool so in that way it is academically relevant. I do think you need to add a sentence or section about what your specific angle is for the use of/understanding of a SWOT (something more like you section 'Critical success factors').
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
The article is very interesting yes, and it is clear you are interested in the topic. If you can expand on the Critical success factors, that would help your article add more value to other people (I think its a very interesting section, where a lot of the value from your article comes from).
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 references, but you have written them yourself. You should try use the wiki citing of [1] (try look it up on the wiki help) - using this feature will add all your references at the end of your article automatically. Otherwise, you use references well in your article.
Also you write 'Volume 2, by Ryan Watkin and Doug Leigh (p.131)' after a reference in your text. This is too much info to include in the text itself, and should rather be in the reference list at the end of the article. Rather put the reference after “Handbook of Improving performance in the Workplace”.
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
