Talk:Crisis Management in Construction Projects

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Yulisa Gutierrez

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

You could expand in depth a little more on your abstract. Also, the last sentence throws off the flow of your abstract. Maybe try saying something like "Aside from offering a brief background on crisis management, the main goal of this article is to cover the various tools project managers have to prevent crises in relations to cost overrun in construction projects, and the available tools to mitigate cost after crises.'"'

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

The structure is a little confusing due to the fact that it is not clearly shown what is a subcategory of what. Also, I feel like instead of just listing information, try to explain WHY its important to know that information, and how that info could alter or enhance the situation. Just a small tip

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

There are many small grammar mistakes such as miss-spelling, erroneously using "there, their, theyre, or there are". In the Theory section you forgot a period. Small things. Nothing too crazy.

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

No figures put up, but dont worry, I did the same haha. I dont know how to upload the pictures or figures onto the wiki article yet

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

I feel like it was just a lot of information but not a lot of "tying together" to represent a full argument or idea.

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

Ive covered these questions above

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

Citation is good

feedback 3 - mercedes hachmann

the theory part looks somewhat fragmented. It should be ok, if you were planning on expanding the individual sections, otherwise I would recomend changing the layout. Also, the different header sizes look rather random and don't really help the structure as I think you intended - maybe use normal text in bold and italics instead of headers for the under points?