Talk:Prince2

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity	Good
Language	Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good but the abstract is a bit short so you have space to explain further
Purpose explanation	Good
Title of the Wiki	Good
Relevance to curriculum	Relevant
References	Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Other	Abstract is a bit short

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Haagen Patzig Petersen

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

Good summery/Abstract, gives a good overview of what is going to presented

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

I guess a lot of material is still missing so a bit hard to determine the consistancy and the flow. But the headlines present is good and i think the article is structure well in the sence of the headlines now

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

Very good 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

Really nice table, and i like the way you use bullet points as well, malet it nice and easy to read

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 in relation to PM, i really like the critical evaluation part, that narrow in and describe suitable conditions

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

Not enough material to determiner yet

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

Not yet