Talk:Determining Measurement Methods in Earned Value Management
(→Answer 6) |
|||
| Line 190: | Line 190: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | ==Feedback 3 | Reviewer name: ''Durant Mangum''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''I think the abstract could be more direct. But it I do know what the article will cover.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article was clear in the various tools that can be applied in project management in relation to EVM.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 no major grammatical errors. Check your quotation marks though.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''I liked the graphs a lot and I found them supportive of the text. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Yes, it is of high practical importance, and how a project manager can use it in real life. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 a nice conglomerate of a multitude of tools, so much better than a web search with tools all over the place. ' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''N/A. but the user knows to put one in. .'' | ||
Revision as of 21:21, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Great, however try to make it more concise. Keep up the good work! |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Very relevant. |
| References | Ensure to add references whenever necessary. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Yulisa Gutierrez
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
I don't know if this helps, but whenever I was reading the summary/introduction, I had no idea what the article was a bout (due to ignorance), but once I read the introduction, I was able to comprehend the abstract a little better.
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
It was very interesting. Very well put together and thought through.
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
Grammar was good, but I will say to be careful with comma splices and run-on-sentences. I would also stray away from the words you, me, us, and use "ones"
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
Tables and figures were pretty straight forward. No further recommendations
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
This is a hard question to answer because I feel like it is a very elaborated article, but might stray away or confuse those who have no idea of the topic. So I guess it all depends on the target audience. But as this is a student assignment where you are you write an academic paper with strong arguments, it is very valid for you to assume previous exposure to the topic. Just something to think about... Maybe include more examples?
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
Most of my recommendation was listed above.'
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
No recommendations. Good as is.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Sandro Pina
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 3 | Reviewer name: Durant Mangum
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
I think the abstract could be more direct. But it I do know what the article will cover.
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 article was clear in the various tools that can be applied in project management in relation to EVM.
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 no major grammatical errors. Check your quotation marks though.
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
I liked the graphs a lot and I found them supportive of the text.
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
Yes, it is of high practical importance, and how a project manager can use it in real life.
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 a nice conglomerate of a multitude of tools, so much better than a web search with tools all over the place. '
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
N/A. but the user knows to put one in. .
