Talk:Cash flow and milestone payments

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
|'''Other'''|| Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.  
 
|'''Other'''|| Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Rikke Louise Kjær Knudsen''==
 +
===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===
 +
Good introduction into the key areas and manages to capture interest.
 +
The spelling could be improved, cut out unnecessary words and make sure not to repeate the same things over and over again.
 +
 +
===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 is not coherent, the sections do not flow naturally.
 +
The section “Introduction” is unnecessary as you already have “Contents”
 +
“Definition of Cash flow and milestone payment”: A long section just for a definition. Normally definitions are short and specific. Try to incorporate and shorten it in the next section.
 +
You mention a lot of the same things sevel times though the article.
 +
“Cash flow and milestone payment in general”: A bit early to list pros/cons.
 +
Include pros/cons in the reflection-section
 +
Try to shorten to name of the sections
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Poor language use. The article is written with repeated grammatical errors.
 +
 +
Be more direct and exact in your language, it contains a lot of unnecessary fill words, but very few academic words and theorem.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
The quality of the figures are poor, but they give a good understanding. More explanation could be usefull.
 +
 +
===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 of the article is relevant, but the implementation and examples of this are lacking. Why the article ends up being irrelevant.
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
No, the article was strenuous reading as you both should understand the tool and the meaning from a poorly written text.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
The article does not contain a discussion of the applications or pros/cons of the tool.
 +
The article does not link the references correct in the sections, why most of the article seems self-invented.
 +
Use more references and link them in the article after every section/part.

Revision as of 21:46, 25 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Good
Language Good but with a few misspellings
Description of the tool/theory/concept Could be more clear. Could decide to choose either project, program or portfolio management
Purpose explanation Good
Title of the Wiki Good but if you decide to choose one either project, program or portfolio then you could write e.g. Cash Flow and Milestone Payments in Project Management
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Other Change the order between the abstract and the introduction so the abstract is first.


Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Rikke Louise Kjær Knudsen

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

Good introduction into the key areas and manages to capture interest. The spelling could be improved, cut out unnecessary words and make sure not to repeate the same things over and over again.

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 is not coherent, the sections do not flow naturally. The section “Introduction” is unnecessary as you already have “Contents” “Definition of Cash flow and milestone payment”: A long section just for a definition. Normally definitions are short and specific. Try to incorporate and shorten it in the next section. You mention a lot of the same things sevel times though the article. “Cash flow and milestone payment in general”: A bit early to list pros/cons. Include pros/cons in the reflection-section Try to shorten to name of the sections


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

Poor language use. The article is written with repeated grammatical errors.

Be more direct and exact in your language, it contains a lot of unnecessary fill words, but very few academic words and theorem.

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

The quality of the figures are poor, but they give a good understanding. More explanation could be usefull.

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 of the article is relevant, but the implementation and examples of this are lacking. Why the article ends up being irrelevant.


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

No, the article was strenuous reading as you both should understand the tool and the meaning from a poorly written text.

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

The article does not contain a discussion of the applications or pros/cons of the tool. The article does not link the references correct in the sections, why most of the article seems self-invented. Use more references and link them in the article after every section/part.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Cash_flow_and_milestone_payments&oldid=66970"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox