Talk:Application of Agile

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language	The text is coherent, however there's a few grammatical errors (missing space).
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good.
Article purpose explanation	Well elaborated.
Relevance to curriculum	Very relevant.
References	Make sure to use the list of references whenever necessary.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen

Question 1 Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? A: Yes. What would you suggest to improve? A: Not using “is all over”. Use , and . more frequent. Wrong wording like “Agile in its full form is covering various aspects as” in stead of: “Agile is covering various aspects like the following”. Do not start a sentence with but or and. Do not use “All of these parts of” – use “These parts of”

Question 2 Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? A: No. Is there a logical flow to the article? A: Following the 12 steps are fine. The logical flow of jumping from 5  11  8 does not make sense without an explanation. Does one part build upon the other? A: Yes, fine with the current skeleton. Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? A: Arguments are made without a source. What would you suggest to improve? A: Add sources, check for pluralis or singularis. Shorten the headlines.

Question 3 Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? A: No. Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? A: No. Fill-words are used but not correctly. Example of a bad sentence: “Some frameworks focus more on some parts of Agile some applying all and yet some only applying fewer”. “It is here noted that it is very possible to integrate some parts of Agile without the others”

Question 4 Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? A: A mix. One figure is to big to read and use, and the other one is not showing. Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? A: No, since there is not description of the large bubbles. What would you suggest to improve? A: Make the figure visible.

Question 5 Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? A: Medium. Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? A: Yes, the description explains it quite good.

Question 6 Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? A: Unfortunately not. Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? A: No.

Question 7 Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? A: No. Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? A: No. Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? A: I cannot tell, since there is no reference.