Talk:Scheduling: Critical path, PERT and Gantt
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | OK but could mention something about a comparison or the fact that the article is made to help choosing the right method |
| 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 | You need a headline for the abstract and the "content box" is before the abstract and the abstract is a bit long. This topic very broad. If you go for it then focus on which method to choose depending on the project and the comparison of the methods since this it what is useful for the reader. So focus on your part 2 and keep 3,4,5 to a minimum. Otherwise it might be better to focus your article so it is not too broad. Let me know if it does not make sense. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Federica Menti
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
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
Yes, the argument is clear and also the structure of the article
Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 3
improvements suggested: Abstract: typing error "aforementioned"
Not possible to answer to the question below.
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
