Talk:Effective Brainstorming
(→Feedback on Abstract:) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | The summary is pretty general but it gives some insights about the further development of the article. I would anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just a bit more deep) and on more specific purposes of the article. | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 50: | Line 51: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | There are some minors grammatical aspects that could be improved. | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 62: | Line 64: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question. | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 74: | Line 77: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 90: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question. | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 100: | Line 105: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ' | + | |
| + | The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the need to add more references. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:42, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is okay, however there's a few grammatical errors. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Good. However, how a link to engineering project, program or portfolio management needs to be made. |
| Relevance to curriculum | A link to engineering project, program or portfolio management needs to be made. This is not organizational management or a description of interactive works (e.g. strategy and planning methods). |
| References | Good reference. Make sure to use the list of references when appropriate. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The summary is pretty general but it gives some insights about the further development of the article. I would anyway spend more words on the description of the tool (just a bit more deep) and on more specific purposes of the article.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
There are some minors grammatical aspects that could be improved.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
The only abstract does not give enough information to answer this question.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
The reference used is fine. Obviously there's the need to add more references.
