Talk:Project Uniqueness

From apppm
Revision as of 20:28, 24 February 2019 by Hannah (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Hannah Kürschner

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes it point it out in a good way.

What would you suggest to improve? Keep in mind the article should explain the method and should not advertise it.

Answer 1

Answer here

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes the argument is clear, but a bit repetitive in the beginning.

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes the structure is logical and good understandable.

Does one part build upon the other? Yes they built up ion one another.

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes it is

What would you suggest to improve? The Introduction paragraph is repetitive to the abstract.

Answer 2

Answer here

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? In the beginning are some minor grammar mistakes.

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes it is explained in a good way.

What would you suggest to improve? Read through it again.

Answer 3

Answer here

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes they do

What would you suggest to improve? Nothing

Answer 4

Answer here

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes very much

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

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? yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? yes

What would you suggest to improve? -

Answer 6

Answer here

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes very good

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? yes

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? yes mostly (introduction)

What would you suggest to improve? introduction seems a bit like an advertisement

Answer 7

Answer here

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox