Talk:Conceptual levels of competence
(→Answer 3) |
(→Answer 3) |
||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | There is spelling mistakes and some | + | There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors. |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Good but it could be more coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Project management competence is described but could be more elaborated. |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Needs to be elaborated |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Ok |
| Other | At the moment, the focus of the article is bit broad and it is not clearly defined |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Robert Kjønås
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 abstract gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.
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 flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in the article.
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 is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.
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
