Talk:Use of Business Model Canvas to Kickstart the project management
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant as long as the focus is how BMC is used in project management |
| References | Really good that you reference to other wikis! For the other references here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | Be careful not trying to cover too much but consider only mentioning BMC for kickstarting one of the project management methods |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir
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:
The quality of the summary is very good and it gives a clear insight to the article's content. Good job.
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:
As the article only has the abstract written, it is not possible to give a full judgement on it obviously but how the chapters have been structured is very good and by defining the difference of those two methods is interesting.
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:
Language is good in what has been written so far.
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 or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.
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:
Not possible to say as only the abstract is there.
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:
I think the article will be interesting especially because of the detailed information on each method in the sub-chapters.
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:
No annotated bibliography has been made.
