Talk:SAFe
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Yes. The summary is well written and has a clear focus, it sums up really nicely what is intended to do in the article - very interesting topic'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There is a good logical flow - it is good how you start with the concept and goes into the implementation and finishes with the limitations. |
| + | The argumentation and the explaination of the concept is clear and it is easy to read. It is really nice to break up the text with some bulletpoints and bold text as indication of important things/points. '' | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 37: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Overall good spelling and grammar.'' |
| + | |||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 50: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There is only one figure and it shows the implementation of SAFe very nice. It should perhaps be scaled a bit down in the final article, it is quite large. Since there is only one figure, I would suggest having one or two in the concept section (when the article is finalized) as well to support your text and point.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 62: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The topic is very interesting and relevant. I see the article both as practical and academic of relevance because it is about a methodology - how it works and how it can be implemented'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 74: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I would say the article is most interesting for a practitioner, because it describes the methodology step by step without being to heavy in the theory and history. The article is a good starting point for a practitioner. Furthermore, the article is critical to the methodology and provides limitations of it. '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 88: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good work with the citation and referencing throughout the article. The choice of references seems proper, but I would hesitate a bit when using a blog article. Remember to include the standards as well. No annotated bibliography has been made yet. |
| + | Good job! It is a very interesting topic and highly relevant - will be looking forward to read the finished article.'' | ||
Revision as of 17:53, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Anne Dittmann
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
Yes. The summary is well written and has a clear focus, it sums up really nicely what is intended to do in the article - very interesting topic
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
There is a good logical flow - it is good how you start with the concept and goes into the implementation and finishes with the limitations. The argumentation and the explaination of the concept is clear and it is easy to read. It is really nice to break up the text with some bulletpoints and bold text as indication of important things/points.
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
Overall good spelling and grammar.
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
There is only one figure and it shows the implementation of SAFe very nice. It should perhaps be scaled a bit down in the final article, it is quite large. Since there is only one figure, I would suggest having one or two in the concept section (when the article is finalized) as well to support your text and point.
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 topic is very interesting and relevant. I see the article both as practical and academic of relevance because it is about a methodology - how it works and how it can be implemented
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
I would say the article is most interesting for a practitioner, because it describes the methodology step by step without being to heavy in the theory and history. The article is a good starting point for a practitioner. Furthermore, the article is critical to the methodology and provides limitations of it.
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
Good work with the citation and referencing throughout the article. The choice of references seems proper, but I would hesitate a bit when using a blog article. Remember to include the standards as well. No annotated bibliography has been made yet.
Good job! It is a very interesting topic and highly relevant - will be looking forward to read the finished article.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Name
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Article purpose explanation | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant. Make sure you keep it within the focus |
| References | Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
