Talk:Belbin's Team Roles
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Needs to be more elaborated |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of th...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Amani Alabdullah''== | ||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Not added yet | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve?- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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? Somehow | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? - | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? There are some smaller grammar and spelling errors. | ||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve?- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? - | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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? It seems that it could, once finished. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve?- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?- | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:52, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Good. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Needs to be more elaborated |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | The purpose of the article is not quite clear |
| Relevance to curriculum | The topic is relevant but make sure you link it with project management and state how should it contribute/be relevant. Also, it is lacking a bit of context |
| References | Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Amani Alabdullah
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Not added yet
What would you suggest to improve?-
[edit] 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? Somehow
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? yes
What would you suggest to improve? -
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? There are some smaller grammar and spelling errors. Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?-
[edit] 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
What would you suggest to improve? -
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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? It seems that it could, once finished.
What would you suggest to improve?-
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?-
What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.
