Talk:Gantt chart and Scheduling techniques

Feedback on Abstract:

There's some progress. However, I cannot give much feedback at this point as the abstract is incomplete (19-Feb-2019).

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sofie Martinussen

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

I think the abstact is good and creal but I would suggest to include all the tool mentioned in the article in the abstract, in order for the reader to know what is coming.

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 generally good, i like the fact that the tools are presented in a logical way - e.g. first do this and then this. However, I will suggest to move up the section about scheduling so it comes before project time management, as you mention a few things that come before project time management.

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

Overall the writing is good, however, a few grammar mistakes are made - more punctuation would help the reader.

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

Very nice figures, I like the visual elements.

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

Very relevant topic, however, it could be made more clear why it is relevant, e.g. reference to project success.

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

Yes, very.

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

Good referencing, but remember to describe the sources.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Simon Muurholm Hansen

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 abstract sums up the content of the article in a good way

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 argumentation of the article is solid and the overall readability of the article is good.

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

The grammar of the article is good overall with a few minor mistakes such as the present tense verbs in third person.

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

The figures are quite good and very illustrative. The video is a nice touch.

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

The article is highly relevant both academicly and practically is it shows the use of a very usefull scheduling tool.

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

Same answer as question 5

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

Annotated bibliography is still missing. Otherwise overall good citations.