Talk:Changing conversations based on the Stacey matrix
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "Anna: Very nice topic choice. I like that the method is so specific so that it will allow you to go into greater details in the 3000 word article.") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Anna: Very nice topic choice. I like that the method is so specific so that it will allow you to go into greater details in the 3000 word article. | Anna: Very nice topic choice. I like that the method is so specific so that it will allow you to go into greater details in the 3000 word article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Reviewer 1 – User: s113735''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Feedback: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Formal Aspects: | ||
| + | *The article clearly relates to the “method or tool” structure, which is required. Super! | ||
| + | *There are a few grammatical or spelling errors, which can easily be corrected for increased understanding. These are mainly missing words or endings of words i.e.: “ | ||
| + | “This <strike>alines</strike> [aligns] with the theory of Ralph D. Stacey (2000). “ | ||
| + | “This level of complexity is referred [to] as Chaotic. “ | ||
| + | “It allows [us/you] to compare the level of agreement with the degree of certainty “ | ||
| + | Other than these small errors the language is generally at a high, technical level fit for a scholarly Wiki article. | ||
| + | *Your sentences are short and concise and rarely becomes long and jumbled! | ||
| + | *The Wiki seems to be formatted correctly with headings sub-headings etc. | ||
| + | *The figure is clear, referenced in the text and seems to be formally sourced. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Content Aspects: | ||
| + | *I find your choice of topic specific and relatable, which is really nice! It also clearly relates to a project, program or portfolio management topic. | ||
| + | *Your introduction and your figure gives me (the reader) a good idea of the tool and its purpose. | ||
| + | *The article at the time of reading is, sadly, not finished as I can see plenty of other topics remains unwritten. | ||
| + | *From the topic list, I can see that there eventually will be a nice logical flow throughout the article. | ||
| + | *So far, NO references or annotated bibliography exists in the article; this needs to be included. | ||
| + | *So far, the article does not link to any other articles on the Wiki. I understand that it might be tough to find something directly related to this specific tool amongst the rather limited topics on the Wiki. I suggest trying to find some broad topics or even Categories to link to when writing. For instance, you might link to “human behaviour” (a category on the Wiki) when writing about the “agreement dimension” in the Stacey Matrix. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Overall Conclusion: | ||
| + | The article clearly needs a lot of work (adding more content) and the existing text will have to be referenced accordingly. Minor spelling errors still need correction, but the overall quality and content is good. | ||
Revision as of 15:59, 22 September 2015
Anna: Very nice topic choice. I like that the method is so specific so that it will allow you to go into greater details in the 3000 word article.
Reviewer 1 – User: s113735
Feedback:
Formal Aspects:
- The article clearly relates to the “method or tool” structure, which is required. Super!
- There are a few grammatical or spelling errors, which can easily be corrected for increased understanding. These are mainly missing words or endings of words i.e.: “
“This alines [aligns] with the theory of Ralph D. Stacey (2000). “
“This level of complexity is referred [to] as Chaotic. “
“It allows [us/you] to compare the level of agreement with the degree of certainty “
Other than these small errors the language is generally at a high, technical level fit for a scholarly Wiki article.
- Your sentences are short and concise and rarely becomes long and jumbled!
- The Wiki seems to be formatted correctly with headings sub-headings etc.
- The figure is clear, referenced in the text and seems to be formally sourced.
Content Aspects:
- I find your choice of topic specific and relatable, which is really nice! It also clearly relates to a project, program or portfolio management topic.
- Your introduction and your figure gives me (the reader) a good idea of the tool and its purpose.
- The article at the time of reading is, sadly, not finished as I can see plenty of other topics remains unwritten.
- From the topic list, I can see that there eventually will be a nice logical flow throughout the article.
- So far, NO references or annotated bibliography exists in the article; this needs to be included.
- So far, the article does not link to any other articles on the Wiki. I understand that it might be tough to find something directly related to this specific tool amongst the rather limited topics on the Wiki. I suggest trying to find some broad topics or even Categories to link to when writing. For instance, you might link to “human behaviour” (a category on the Wiki) when writing about the “agreement dimension” in the Stacey Matrix.
Overall Conclusion: The article clearly needs a lot of work (adding more content) and the existing text will have to be referenced accordingly. Minor spelling errors still need correction, but the overall quality and content is good.
