Talk:Gantt Charts as a Tool for Project Management
Josef: Hello, I like the idea for your article. Please make sure to follow the suggested structure for "method" articles.
Reviewer 3: DanielKrogh
- Formal aspects
- The structure of the article is made as expected from type 1 article.
- There is few errors in the text. Be careful to use daily speaking language like e.g. “didn’t” instead for did not.
- The sentences are well formulated are in the right length.
- All the important points in the article are illustrated in figures.
- It is easy to understand the figures and they are well explained.
- Almost every figure is referenced in the text, but where Figure 1? Make sure that each figure has its own number and are referenced in the text.
- All the figures is referenced.
- There is a lack of sub-headings which could be made easily. The figures size are proper and does not need to edited.
- Content aspects
- It is a highly interesting topic and hence it is relevant for a practitioner.
- The length of the article is as expected.
- The flow of the article has a logical structure and have no comments on that.
- The summary fitted fine for this size of a project and highlighted the most important things.
- I do not have access to the reference list, so I cannot comment on that.
- The author has begun to make an annotated bibliography but is not finished yet.
- The overall impression is that there is no trace of plagiarism.
It is a very interesting topic, but also very relevant. If I should come with any suggestions, it would be if there could be an example of any real life cases where it went good/bad. The article is easy to read and the flow is good.
Reviewer 1: Fernando Lara
1. Really nice explanation of the tool. It is easy understandable and engaging even for people not related with project, program and portfolio management. Moreover, the article clearly relates to project, program and portfolio management and it seems really useful for practitioners. 2. The figures used are really useful to understand the text and they are properly referenced along the explanation. 3. There is a read threat along the article that make easy to read it. Well done! 4. The whole explanation is really nice, but some grammar and spelling errors make the whole article look a bit worse (i.e. mostly not needed hyphens) 5. Again, the way is written the article is very nice, but it would be necessary to reformulate some sentences excessively long (e.g. “Some tasks can overlap each other because they don't depend on each other but on the other hand some tasks may be dependent on one another and therefore it can be useful to use indications of dependencies that link related tasks together in the Gantt chart”)
6. The content is really nice; thus the form should also be. Check the layout of the article as it seems that there are some interference between images and text.
7. It is nice to have such reliable sources. However it is not necessary to state the same reference so many time. To refer several times to the same source it can be done by initially doing:
Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag