Talk:Epistemic vs. Aleatory uncertainty
(→Question 2 · TEXT) |
(→Answer 2) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The argument is clear and there is a logical flow. The article is consistent and free of contradictions.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 13:25, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good |
| Other | Are you focusing on project management or project, program and portfolio management? You could narrow your topic to one of them. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Osman Furkan Simsek
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 summary is precise and clear. It successfully focuses on the key points.
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
The argument is clear and there is a logical flow. The article is consistent and free of contradictions.
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
