Talk:Due Diligence on Wind Farm Assets

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language	The text is coherent.
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good.
Article purpose explanation	Missing. An explanation of the article purpose and eventually the target group should be highlighted.
Relevance to curriculum	Irrelevant at this point. A clear link to project/program/portfolio management still needs to be made (e.g. project business case etc). This article shouldn't focus on investment management.
References	Add some of the listed references (DTU Inside) in your abstract, if needed.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Edoardo Braccini

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

I would put some words in bold, in this way the reading is easier.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Yes

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

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

I would emphasize the relation between the Due Diligence and the project management.

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

It appears to me that there are some repetitions and in one sentence the tenses don't match.

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?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

I would add some more figures

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? yes

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

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

-

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

I would suggest some tools that can help during the Due Diligence.

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

I would add a linked references and I would add the reference of the figure.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Evgenia Chatzivasileiou

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Well established.It emphasizes all the key features.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Yes

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

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

I would emphasize more on this Projects' safety barries, because I believe is really interesting and relevant. But I can understand that there are more data to be added in future.

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Mostly

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

-

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? Mostly

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

It would be nice if one ore two more figures be added. The figure that already exists is really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the risks better, but a reference needs to be added.

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

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

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

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

-

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

I would suggest to add a framework on stakeholder and managerial role

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

References need to be added properly