Talk:Cash flow & payment milestones
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Marianne Delp''== | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Marianne Delp (reviewed 18/02)''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Article is not finished and only includes a abstract and short introduction. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude if the abstract is good or not and to make suggestion on improvements.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | 'Same answer as question 1. In addition, the introduction is well written with good contents in regard to the article's focus.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good and precise written, with no significant errors.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The two figures are very good where they are easy to understand and are relevant to the text. Remember that the professor said you can't copy-paste figures from a webpage etc., but that we had to make our own based on the figures. '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''This article is of relevance more towards a practical relevance. One improvement could maybe be to specify directly how this article relate to project, program and/or portfolio management in one sentence.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I belive this article are interesting for practitioner and academic to read. '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The sources seems reliable. One of the sources refers to empirical data from Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s in 2015. Note: One of the sources are not correctly cited in text as the others. '' |
Revision as of 16:51, 18 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent, although this can be improved
Language Some spelling mistakes e.g. "technics" where it is meant "techniques"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Can be elaborated - e.g. what is a payment milestone?
Purpose explanation The abstract needs further elaboration - it is on the short side in terms of content
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Consider the following:
- Explain the link between cash flow and payment milestones to Project Cost Management
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Marianne Delp (reviewed 18/02)
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
Article is not finished and only includes a abstract and short introduction. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude if the abstract is good or not and to make suggestion on improvements.
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
'Same answer as question 1. In addition, the introduction is well written with good contents in regard to the article's focus.
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
Good and precise written, with no significant errors.
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 two figures are very good where they are easy to understand and are relevant to the text. Remember that the professor said you can't copy-paste figures from a webpage etc., but that we had to make our own based on the figures.
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
This article is of relevance more towards a practical relevance. One improvement could maybe be to specify directly how this article relate to project, program and/or portfolio management in one sentence.
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 belive this article are interesting for practitioner and academic to read.
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
The sources seems reliable. One of the sources refers to empirical data from Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s in 2015. Note: One of the sources are not correctly cited in text as the others.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Alice Allouche
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
