Talk:Project Sponsorship
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is good. However, it can be more concise and coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | This needs to be elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Remember to make correct references (websites). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini
Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Mostly
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
I would outline the purpose of the article and I would introduce a brief definition of project sponsorship to better understand the following.
Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Mostly
Is there a logical flow to the article? Mostly
Does one part build upon the other? Mostly
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 2
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
