Talk:Critical reflection on Project Portfolio Management software

Val review

I would like to start saying that I learnt something reading your article, which is a good point. The structure is logical and you manage to turn the complexity of your topic into an easy reading article. I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following:

Formal aspects

• You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [1] You can also have a look to other articles who use it
• figure 1 is missing
• It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2. You can add a caption using Wiki formatting.
• "Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article

Grammar and Spelling

Few errors here. To find them, use the research tool.

• deferral instead of deferal
• "As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."?
• "The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance."

Content aspects

• Your article is mostly didactic but sometimes you take strong positions like in this sentence: "Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would argue that a tool that distorts the result is worse." Maybe you should stay pedagogic.
• "From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?
• Your article misses maybe a conclusion?

Peer review by Qwerty

Thank you for your article. It was interesting to read and see a critical reflection on PPM Software and on the same hand to get more comprehensive understanding regarding the PPM Software processes. There are few thoughts and insights about it that I would like to share with you.

Formal aspects

• Since it is a WIKI article, I am not sure if there should be a paragraph called "Abstract". Maybe it would be more appropriate way to put it in ahead of the content box?
• Sometimes composition of sentences makes it hard to understand, and in some cases it looks like missing punctuation what makes difficult to follow the idea.
• At one place you use expression "is they", should it be "are"?
• Regarding the figures, what do they reflect upon? Do they really make sense in this context?